job satisfaction of interpreters for the deaf

Running head: Interpreter Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction of Interpreters for the Deaf

by

Daniel B. Swartz

School of Organization and Management

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The Graduate School of America

Minneapolis, Minnesota

1999

Copyright Approval Page

Approval Page

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine relationships

between job satisfaction and personal- and job-related

factors among sign language interpreters for the deaf. A

secondary purpose was to examine job satisfaction

differences between staff, dependent contractor, and

independent contractor interpreters. A third purpose of

the study was to estimate a model that predicts job

satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf.

A series of Spearman’s rho rank correlations were

performed to examine which variables most significantly

relate to job satisfaction. Autonomy, workload, education,

and supervision emerged as those variables significantly

related to job satisfaction among interpreters in general.

Finally, a multiple regression analysis was undertaken

to estimate a model that best predicts job satisfaction

among interpreters for the deaf in general. Education

emerged as the most important factor for interpreters,

accounting for 26% of the total variance in job

satisfaction. Autonomy, workload, and supervision all

emerged as weak predictors of job satisfaction, accounting

for only 3% of the total variance in job satisfaction.

Interpreter Job Satisfaction

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people made significant contributions in helping

me complete this dissertation. I am very grateful to my

dissertation committee members for their time, feedback,

and expertise throughout the dissertation process and for

their interest in and enthusiasm for this study. I would

especially like to thank Dr. Sybil McClary for chairing my

dissertation committee, as well as for providing guidance,

feedback, and editing of this dissertation. I am also

thankful to Drs. David Balch and Stanley Trollip, Ms. Joyce

Linden, and Mr. Terry Colton (committee members) for

providing valuable input during the writing and refining of

this dissertation. Their collective wisdom and insight

were critical in shaping this study.

I would like to extend my appreciation to many

individuals in the interpreting field for their assistance

in this study. Foremost, I appreciate all the interpreters

in the United States and Canada who completed the surveys.

I am grateful to Kelly MacKenzie, president of the

Association of Visual Language Interpreters in Canada


iii

(AVLIC) for her organization’s support of this study. Many

thanks to Marion Jennings of Webster University, Geneva,

Switzerland, for her help in obtaining documentation. I am

grateful to Paul Spector for his time and sharing of

expertise regarding job satisfaction in general. I extend

a special thanks to several individuals in interpreter- and

deaf-related programs who lent their support and knowledge:

Dr. Donna Lewondowski, Oakland Community College; Heidi

Reed, D.E.A.F., Inc.; Ann Topliff, Front Range Community

College; Simone Scholl, Universität Hamburg; The Canadian

Association of the Deaf; and many others too numerous to

mention. I would also like to extend a special thanks to

all of the educators, trainers, and interpreters in the

interpreting profession worldwide who collaborated with me

during the literature collection phase of this study.

Finally, I would like to extend my appreciation for

some special people in my life. I am very grateful to Pat

McCracken, Ron Burke, and Toni Burke for their tremendous

support and patience throughout the doctoral program, and

especially the dissertation process.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES.................................... viii

LIST OF FIGURES...................................... x

INTRODUCTION......................................... 1

Definitions ........................................ 3

Background of the Problem .......................... 4

Statement of the Problem ........................... 6

Rationale and Purpose of the Study ................. 7

Research Questions ................................. 9

Research Question 1 .............................. 9

Research Question 2 .............................. 9

Research Question 3 ............................. 10

A Review of the Literature ........................ 11

Expansion on the Factors of Satisfaction ........ 17

Cross-Cultural Considerations.................. 17

Working Conditions............................. 21

Interpreting Standards......................... 27

Interpreter Shortages.......................... 31


v

Other Labor Concerns........................... 42

Training Specific for Interpreters............. 47

Personal Issues................................ 51

Studies on Satisfaction in General............. 54

Job Satisfaction Among Self-Employed........... 65

Job Satisfaction Among Interpreters............ 67

Measurement of Job Satisfaction ................. 69

Summary of Literature Review .................... 72

METHOD.............................................. 78

Introductory Statement ............................ 78

Review of Research Questions and Hypotheses ....... 79




Variables, Levels of Measurement, and Definitions . 81

Research Design ................................... 83

Sampling Procedures ............................... 84

Sample Size ..................................... 84

Sample Selection ................................ 86

Procedures ........................................ 87

Web Design of Instruments ....................... 87

Subject Notification and Participation .......... 90

Human Subjects’ Issues .......................... 94


vi

Instruments ....................................... 94

Part I: Demographic Variables ................... 95

Part II: Job Satisfaction ....................... 95

Part III: Factors Related to Job Satisfaction ... 97

Autonomy....................................... 98

Workload....................................... 99

Role Conflict.................................. 99

Data Analysis .................................... 100

RESULTS............................................ 102

Introductory Statement ........................... 102

Sample Characteristics ........................... 102

Descriptive Statistics for Job Satisfaction ...... 104

Job Satisfaction.............................. 104

Correlates of Job Satisfaction ................... 105

Research Hypothesis 1 .......................... 106




Multiple Regression Analysis ................... 116

Research Hypothesis 5......................... 117

Demographic Characteristics of Standard Wage Earner

and Contract Interpreters ............................. 118

Summary .......................................... 126


vii

DISCUSSION......................................... 129

Summary of the Research Findings ................. 129

Research Question 1 ............................ 131

Correlates of Job Satisfaction................ 131


Correlates of Job Satisfaction Among Interpreters

with Differing Job Status.......................... 135


Predictors of Job Satisfaction................ 137

Implications for Interpreter Policy Practice ..... 138

Enhancing Interpreters’ Satisfaction ............. 139

Limitations of the Study ......................... 146

Recommendations for Future Research .............. 148

REFERENCES......................................... 151

APPENDIX A......................................... 175

APPENDIX B......................................... 179

APPENDIX C......................................... 196

APPENDIX D......................................... 222


viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.................................................. 12

Table 2.................................................. 15

Table 3.................................................. 18

Table 4.................................................. 26

Table 5.................................................. 58

Table 6.................................................. 66

Table 7................................................. 105

Table 8................................................. 107

Table 9................................................. 111

Table 10................................................ 113

Table 11................................................ 115

Table 12................................................ 117

Table 13................................................ 121

Table 14................................................ 123

Table 15................................................ 124

Table 16................................................ 125

Table 17................................................ 222

Table 18................................................ 226

Table 19................................................ 228

Table 20................................................ 230

Table 21................................................ 231

Table 22................................................ 233


ix

Table 23................................................ 234

Table 24................................................ 235

Table 25................................................ 236


x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Survey Web Site Design......................... 91

Figure 2. Diagram of the Predictors of Job Satisfaction. 138

Figure 3. Web Site Welcome Page......................... 196

Figure 4. Web Site Human Subject’s Issues Page.......... 198

Figure 5. Web Site Decline Page......................... 199

Figure 6. Web Site Decline Exit Page.................... 200

Figure 7. Web Site Introduction to Demographics Page.... 200

Figure 8. Web Site Demographics Page.................... 201

Figure 9. Web Site Job Satisfaction Survey Page......... 210

Figure 10. Web Site Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1994)

Page ................................................ 213

Figure 11. Web Site Autonomy and Role Conflict Subscales

Survey Page ......................................... 217

Figure 12. Web Site Workload Subscale Survey Page....... 219

Figure 13. Web Site Completion/Exit Page................ 220

Figure 14. Web Site Thank You Page...................... 221

INTRODUCTION

Job Satisfaction of Interpreters for the Deaf

Interpreters have been around ever since communication

was possible. If a member of one tribe could not

understand a member of another, an intermediary was used to

enable communication. When we think of interpreters, we

usually think of the spoken language, but we are not

limited in the profession of interpreting by those who use

oral languages. A language interpreter can take a

communication “symbol” from one derivation (source

language) and place it into another (target language),

whether the language is oral or visual. This is the

premise under which sign language interpreters function,

and there are many influencing factors that influence this

process.

Sign language interpreters must consider cultural

variations and nuances when transferring communication from

the source into the target language.

Interpretation is the art and science of receiving a

message from one language and rendering it into

another. It involves the appropriate transfer and

transmission of culturally based linguistic and


2

nonlinguistic information. The goal of interpreting

is to transfer a message from a source language into a

target language without skewing it and keeping in mind

the linguistic needs of the recipients of the message.

Interpreting serves a diverse population in a variety

of settings across a broad range of fields and

therefore requires professional interpreters to

possess a breadth and depth of knowledge. (Conference

of Interpreters Trainers, 1995)

In recent years, interpreters for the deaf have become

more visible to the world’s population. In the United

States and Canada, these interpreters, be their method of

interpreting sign language, oral, tactile, or cued speech

can be found almost everywhere. From the emergency rooms

in hospitals to real estate and law offices, wherever there

is a deaf or hard-of-hearing person and a hearing person

who cannot communicate in a mutual language, there is or

should be an interpreter.

The use of interpreters for the deaf has become more

prevalent as more individuals have entered the profession


3

of interpreting. This natural progression of the

profession has created the need for work standards, ethics,

and supporting constructs.

Unfortunately, in this new profession, no research has

been conducted in the area of interpreter job satisfaction.

Job satisfaction is a critical concern, especially in light

of the profession’s newness and rapid growth rate, and the

far-reaching impact that interpreters have in the lives of

both deaf and hearing individuals. It is in the

profession’s best interest to know if its members are happy

with their work environment. Such feedback will better

enable recruiters, trainers, and managers to address

effective training of interpreters, hiring, and retention.

Definitions

There are a number of terms used in this paper that

are germane to the interpreting profession, germane to this

research, or both. They are defined here:

Free-lance Interpreter – any professional interpreter

not employed by an agency, company, or corporation on a

full- or part-time basis, but rather working for one or

many such entities on a contractual or “as needed” basis.


4

Staff Interpreter – any professional interpreter who

is employed by an agency, company, or corporation on a

full-or part-time basis. These interpreters may also be

referred to as standard wage earner interpreters.

Dependent Contractor – any free-lance interpreter who

works exclusively, or nearly exclusively, for one agency,

company, or corporation, while still maintaining free-lance

status (on a contractual or “as needed” basis).

Independent Contractor – any free-lance interpreter

who does not work exclusively for one agency, company, or

corporation, but rather works for many such entities on a

contractual or “as needed” basis.

Certified – any interpreter who has earned national

certification as recognized by the Registry of Interpreters

for the Deaf, Inc. in the United States, or the Association

of Visual Language Interpreters in Canada.

Employment Status – whether an interpreter works full-

time or part-time.

Background of the Problem

The need for sign language interpreters has increased

greatly since the implementation of the Americans with


5

Disabilities Act (Government Printing Office, 1990). Even

though more interpreters are entering the work force than

ever before, there is still a critical shortage of

interpreters throughout the United States and Canada.

Faced with labor shortages, interpreters are finding

themselves working long hours and sometimes under less than

ideal conditions.

Interpreters, functioning as the conduits of

information exchange, cross languages and cultures to

decode and encode messages. Accordingly, interpreters

often find themselves immersed in two cultures--one

grounded in hearing and the other in deafness. In order to

understand how interpreters operate between these two

cultures, Lockmiller (1982) conducted research on the

stressors that interpreters face. Lockmiller (1982) found

that there is a great deal of emotional and job-related

conflict internally for interpreters, who often are left

feeling they must meet the expectations, as unreasonable as

they may seem, of both the hearing and deaf participant in

the interpreting communication process.


6

Statement of the Problem

Due to the strains and stresses placed on interpreters

for the deaf, it is prudent to take an analytical look at

how interpreters are handling this situation. Interpreters

often find themselves operating in isolation functioning as

private contract interpreters. Thus they are free from

some of the organizational constraints faced by typical

wage earners. On the other hand, private contract

interpreters may face workplace problems that are different

and/or compounded due to their unique situation.

There are also a growing number of interpreters who

are finding employment as traditional wage earners. Many

companies, organizations, and government agencies are

finding it beneficial to hire interpreters to full-time

positions. This change may be due to the financial benefit

of having an interpreter on the payroll (as opposed to

hiring private contractor interpreters at an inflated cost)

and/or logistic reasons. And such interpreters may be

facing workplace stress that differs from the stress faced

by their private contract counterparts.


7

Interpreters often enter the workplace with little

training in the area of people management skills and health

maintenance. Adequate training is critical because most

interpreters, whether traditional wage earners or private

contractors, find themselves as the only individuals in

their vocation at a given job site.

In order to understand how interpreters feel about

their vocation – that is, establishment of a benchmark of

satisfaction among working interpreters. To date, there

has been no research on interpreter satisfaction, with the

exception of two anecdotal studies. Rojas (1987) conducted

one study on spoken language interpreters local to Geneva,

Switzerland, and Watson (1987) studied interpreter burnout.

Rationale and Purpose of the Study

There were five reasons for the present study:

1. Interpreting for the deaf is a burgeoning

profession that needs to be better understood.

2. Interpreters for the deaf have never been

assessed before regarding job satisfaction.

3. There is growing concern among educators and

employers regarding interpreter well-being.


8

4. Difficulty has been expressed in recruiting

interpreters who suit the job standards.

5. It is much easier to address and fix problems now

while the profession is young and growing, than

wait until such problems are firmly entrenched in

an establishment that may be reluctant to change.

There present study had four purposes:

1. To clarify and describe the feelings and thoughts

of interpreters about their profession.

2. To explore the implications of satisfaction for

the profession as a whole.

3. To identify methods and policies of increasing

job satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf.

4. To describe the impact, in terms of job

satisfaction and retention of interpreters for

the deaf, of the following variables: gender, job

classification, age, education, tenure,

supervision, salary, promotion, collaboration,

role conflict, workload, autonomy, and working

conditions.


9

Research Questions

The results of this study permitted examination of the

bivariate correlations between these variables and job

satisfaction, and it also permitted examination of gender

differences. This study addressed the following research

questions and hypotheses:

Research Question 1

What job-related factors are most highly related to

job satisfaction?

Research Hypothesis 1

There are significant positive correlations between

job satisfaction and the following variables: age, gender,

tenure, supervisory quality, salary, promotion

opportunities, collaboration, workload, role conflict,

working conditions, autonomy, and educational level.

Research Question 2

What job-related factors are related most closely to

job satisfaction among interpreters with different job

statuses (e.g. standard wage earners, independent

contractors, and dependent contractors)?


10



job satisfaction among standard wage earner interpreters

and following variables: supervisory quality, salary,

promotion opportunities, collaboration, workload, role

conflict, working conditions, autonomy, and educational

level.



job satisfaction among dependent contractor interpreters

and salary, collaboration, role conflict, working

conditions, autonomy, and educational level.



job satisfaction among independent contractor interpreters

and salary, role conflict, working conditions, autonomy,

and educational level.

Research Question 3

What set of the following variables best predicts work

satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf: age, gender,



11


working conditions, autonomy, or educational level?


Collaboration, supervisory quality, and educational

level will emerge as significant predictors of job

satisfaction.

A Review of the Literature

Job satisfaction includes many connecting factors

related to employment. Training, environment, salary,

promotion opportunities, recognition, and ability are a few

of the variables contributing to the larger whole that is

job satisfaction. According to Wood, Chonko, and Hunt

(1993), job satisfaction includes the dimensions of

satisfaction free of cognitive dissonance, variety of

tasks, freedom to perform these tasks, ability to complete

tasks, pay, and security.

When we attempt to identify what makes employees

content, or satisfied, we must first consider what they

want out of an employment relationship. Woolridge (1995)

expresses employee needs while referring to Maslow’s

hierarchy of needs and self-actualization. According to


12

Woolridge, business must make the shift from focusing on

the basic needs of employees to those needs that rise above

the survival level.

Table 1

Factors in Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory

Factor Element

Motivators – satisfiers Achievement (pride)

Recognition (praise)

Work (interest/challenge)

Responsibility (tasks)

Advancement (mobility)

Hygiene – dissatisfiers Policy & Administration

Interpersonal Relations

Supervision

Salary

Working Conditions

Motivation theory offers insight into the needs of

employees. One of the better known motivational theories,

Herzberg’s Two Factor theory (Turoff, 1992), is illustrated


13

in Table 1. According to this theory, there is a strong

tie between values, goals, and motivation. Additionally,

employees are motivated by considerably more than just a

steady and sufficient paycheck.

Work in its historical perspective, that is, as a

unfortunate necessity, is changing at a rapid pace, and

employers must recognize employee needs at all levels.

Clayton Alderfer (Snavely, 1997) recognized the need for

advancement and friendly competition among coworkers,

issues that were also emphasized by Catlette & Hadden

(1998) in their writings on how organizations strive to

make contented employees.

Herzberg (1968) contends that the opposite of

satisfaction is not dissatisfaction, but rather the absence

of satisfaction. Tietjen and Myers (1996) state, according

to Herzberg’s theory, the presence of motivators creates

job satisfaction, but their absence does not create

dissatisfaction.

Maidani (1991), on the other hand, suggests that

hygiene factors, which include company policy,

administration, supervision, salary, interpersonal


14

relations and working conditions, are also sources of

satisfaction, not just dissatisfaction as Herzberg (1968)

contends. While Maidani disputes Herzberg’s findings

regarding hygiene factors, he does support the notion that

motivators are sources of satisfaction.

According to Locke (1976), job satisfaction depends

upon how the individual perceives a discrepancy between

intended performance and achieved or actual performance.

Additionally, satisfaction is achieved when performance is

congruent with one’s values. The closer one gets to

his/her desired performance and the more he/she is in

adherence with his/her values and work ethics, the higher

the level of satisfaction. Values, according to Locke

(1976), have the most significant impact on emotional

response to one’s job.

Tietjen and Myers (1996) interpreted Herzberg’s theory

by contending that attitude is a formidable force in

determining job output and satisfaction. Locke’s (1976)

view that values have a direct impact on work goals and

subsequent satisfaction is complimentary to this

interpretation.


15

Table 2

Gallup’s Elements of Job Satisfaction

Element Explanation

Expectations Congruent with values, needs

Materials Tools to do the job

To do what I do best Match with skills

Recognition Management’s appreciation

Supervisor cares Compassion

Encourages development Training is critical

Opinions count Appreciation from others

Mission Tasks count in global objective

Commitment to quality Corporate quality control

Best friend Workplace social interactions

Learn and grow Upward mobility

Progress Can see accomplishments

The Gallup Organization (1999b) has surveyed job

satisfaction extensively. Generally, when a population of

workers is asked how satisfied they are at work, most (79%)

say they are either very satisfied (28%) or satisfied


16

(51%). The Gallup Organization (1999c) found a number of

elements that contribute to job satisfaction (see Table 2).

These factors support the idea that job satisfaction is

tied to motivation, with elements of personal growth and

competition playing important contributing factors.

Cooper and Artz (1995) used discrepancy theory to

examine job satisfaction. Discrepancy theory suggests that

individual satisfaction is determined, in part, by whether

there is a “gap” between actual rewards or performance and

individual goals or expectations. This theory also

suggests that satisfaction decreases if there is a gap

between expectations and performance. These expectations

are not only those that a worker places upon him or

herself, but also those that others place on the worker.

Cooper and Artz (1995) found that if they controlled for

performance, entrepreneurs with higher initial expectations

would subsequently have lower levels of satisfaction.

Contrary to discrepancy theory, those who had higher

initial expectations were later more satisfied, not less.

This might suggest, as Staw and Ross (1985) found in a


17

longitudinal study of employee satisfaction, that attitudes

are, in part, a function of stable individual traits.

Expansion on the Factors of Satisfaction

As stated earlier, many factors compose what we

consider to be overall job satisfaction. For our purposes,

we will consider factors that are especially important to

interpreters for the deaf. Some of these constructs are

unique to interpreters, although most constructs are shared

across many job categories.

Cross-Cultural Considerations

In 1977, Harboe wrote that sign language interpreters

must take the technical language of judges and lawyers and

make it understandable to deaf people, especially because

deaf people tended to be undereducated (p. 10). Harboe’s

point has validity in terms of the role conflict and

cultural adjustments that interpreters face regularly. An

interpreter is often the only individual in a situation who

is aware of these culture differences.

Harboe (1977) also stated that, “. . . deaf people, by

and large, are not sufficiently trained in how to use an


18

interpreter” (p. 10). Presently, deaf people are becoming

better educated and more upwardly mobile. The cause of

their “under education” (and its diminishing continuance)

in the past never reflected the intellect of deaf people,

but rather the ability of the educational systems to

address the different learning styles and needs of deaf

people properly.

Loncke (1995) points out that interpreters, when

working with “minimally language skilled people” (p. 6),

must constantly adjust. He identifies four types of

adjustments. These appear in Table 3.

Table 3

Loncke’s Adjustments

Adjustment Explanation

Linguistic adjustment Vocabulary & repetition

Cognitive adjustment Redundancy and repetition

Adjustment of knowledge World knowledge and reference

point

Adjustment of communication Right style/modality


19

These adjustments reflect the paces an interpreter

must go through in order to render the message faithfully

and accurately from the source language to the target

language. Though Loncke’s adjustments are geared towards

those who have lower linguistic skills, these adjustments

are still applicable in varying degrees as interpreters

function in both the hearing world and deaf culture. When

both sides of the language interchange fail to understand

these adjustments, and/or appreciate the difficult

decisions involved, stress for the interpreter can result.

Ultimately, this stress can lead to a lessening of his or

her job satisfaction.

Other researchers agree that interpreters must possess

considerable skill (Anderson & Stauffer, 1991; Bosman,

1995; Irwin & Morgan 1985). Not only must they be fluent

in both the source and the target language, they must also

have skills that allow them to mediate beyond cultural

boundaries. They must be ethical (see Code of Ethics, RID,

1998, p. 34), culturally sensitive, and rhetorically and

pragmatically astute. Professors at the Interpreter

Training Program at Oakland Community College (1991) in


20

Oakland, California agree when they report that the

interpreting profession is a demanding one with

considerable physical and intellectual stress.

Interpreters must possess expert knowledge in order to

function effectively using different modes of communication

within a wide variety of environmental settings. They must

be fluent in American Sign Language (ASL), Manually Coded

English (MCE), Signed English (SE), and/or any of the

several Signed Exact English (SEE) systems. They must

interpret in legal, medical, educational, and numerous

other settings with seamless communication. Interpreters

are constantly walking the fine line between explaining the

nuances of language and insulting other participants.

Bourcier (1981) points out that interpreters also feel

a lack of power. According to Herzberg’s theory of

motivation, discussed earlier, interpreters need effective

and strong interpersonal relations (hygiene factors). An

absence of strong interpersonal skills creates

incongruence, as interpreters are often obligated to think

and make decisions for the deaf person, but receive no


21

recognition for right decisions and all the blame for wrong

ones.

Working Conditions

Working conditions involve compensation, benefits,

hours and schedules, supervision, evaluation,

mentoring/support, professional development and

advancement, and physical environment. Hurwitz (1995)

states that working conditions and compensation for

interpreters vary widely. The implementation of PL 94-142

in 1974 (implemented in 1976) created a tremendous demand

for sign language interpreters, a demand that increased

significantly with the passage of the Americans with

Disabilities Act in 1990. Both pieces of federal

legislation caught interpreters and educators largely

unprepared. Hurwitz (1995) also makes the following

contentions:

1. The interpreter’s role is largely undefined.

2. There is little training for interpreters who

engage in educational interpreting.

3. In schools where interpreters are employed,

working conditions are poor and turnover is high.


22

4. Many people falsely equate signing skill to

interpreting skill.

5. Many interpreters in the U.S. and the world

suffer from repetitive motion injury, or upper

extremity cumulative trauma disorder.

6. Interpreters report that they are isolated.

With regard to #4 above, fluency in any language does

not imply the ability to interpret to and from that

language. A person must engage in a totally different

cognitive process while interpreting, a complex process of

receiving a message in one language and delivering it in

another language.

Hurwitz (1995) suggests that supervision and mentoring

of interpreters can lead to increased stamina and a larger

repertoire of tools with which to handle the multifaceted

tasks of the job. Supervision, mentoring, and training,

according to Hurwitz, are important factors in preparing

interpreters for their critical work. They are also

important variables in the gestalt of job satisfaction

among interpreters.


23

Training is an extremely important construct

influencing work conditions and overall job satisfaction.

As early as 1985, Barber-Gonzales, Preston and Sanderson

(1985) reported that the National Center on Deafness at

California State University Northridge provided numerous

programs and avenues for improving working conditions.

These ranged from workshops for stress, performance

recognition, and in-services. It appears that most

training for interpreters regarding stress is directed

toward those who are employed as staff interpreters. This

does not include free-lance and private contract

interpreters who are in essence functioning as self-

employed entrepreneurs or the interpreters who consider

themselves the “lone wolf” (Hurwitz, 1995, p. 9). These

dependent and independent contractors may not be benefiting

from job-based training that alleviates job tension and

improves overall working conditions.

Woll & Porcari (1995) state that there are also some

negative social implications of using, and being, an

interpreter. Interpreters are often the focus of attention

in the working environment, seen as an oddity. This can be


24

uncomfortable for the deaf person, especially if they do

not want to draw attention to themselves in a large room.

It also can be disquieting to the interpreter, especially

those with low self-esteem or confidence. It is akin to

being under a magnifying glass, and not everyone is

comfortable in this situation. Cassell (1984) believes

that interpreter training programs (ITP’s) must accept the

responsibility of enabling students to handle themselves in

a professional manner. This type of training should equip

these future interpreters to handle themselves with

confidence and professionalism while under the consumers’

scrutiny.

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (1993)

membership discussed the issue of working conditions during

their 1993 convention. Subjects of interest are outlined

and explained in Table 4. Many of the items discussed in

this workshop showed the infancy of the profession and the

lack of standardized practices in the profession. It also

showed a lack of the public’s understanding of the

job/profession. Where working standards in other

professions are well-developed, or at least instituted,


25

fought for, and supported by labor unions, interpreters are

now struggling to build a foundation of minimal working

conditions.

Woll (1988) reported that the 12 member countries of

the European Community recognized that some standards need

to be established with regard to working conditions for

interpreters for the deaf. Some six years later, The

European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters (1994)

published a booklet that highlighted working conditions in

over 12 European countries. This booklet demonstrates that

most countries have some form of training for interpreters

as well as written guidelines for working conditions.

Switzerland has a training program that consists of 1800

“lessons” (p.7). They also have rather sophisticated

standards for interpreter working conditions. England,

Wales and Northern Ireland have an extensive training

program for interpreters, as well as an interpreter’s exam

(RSLI examination). However, there seems to be no common

thread between, and even within countries for the most

part.


26

Table 4

RID Member Working Conditions Concerns

Condition Explanation

1. Two hour minimum 1. Minimum 2 hours pay

2. Compensatory prepatory

time

2. Payment for time preparing

for tasks

3. Limitations on contract

interpreting time (avoid

Repetitive Motion Injury –

RMI)

3. More protection for

private contract

interpreters – support of

team interpreting

4. Career ladders/upward

mobility

4. Alleviation of job

“stuckness”

5. Cancellation policy 5. Payment for interpreting

services contracted, but

cancelled

6. Portal to portal 6. Payment for roundtrip

mileage

7. Paying time for travel 7. On-the-clock while enroute

8. Conditions of employment

with service agencies

8. Protection when the “lone

wolf”


27

Despite growing concern among the interpreting

profession regarding working conditions, limited research

has been done on this subject. Carstensen (1994) discussed

that Denmark issued a survey to interpreters gauging

working conditions, and most reported physical distress

associated with their job. Ninety-five percent said they

had motion disorders in the past year. Among interpreters

for the deaf, physical distress and injury is tantamount to

the potential loss of the very tools (their hands) they

need to perform their vocation.

Interpreting Standards

Interpreting standards concerns the professional

requirements that various entities place upon practicing

interpreters. Utah State Board of Education (1997), like

other states, is aggressively addressing the issue of state

certification for interpreters (Virginia Department of

Education, 1993). These states recognize a shortage of

certified interpreters and want to develop their own state

system. The idea behind establishing a state system is

plausible, as it sets minimum standards for practicing in

the states. However, such state systems (sometimes called


28

Quality Assurance systems) have limited reciprocity to

other states.

One problem that states confront when they implement

rigid statewide requirements for interpreters is that they

effectively eliminate many interpreters who are already

working in the system. This problem is indicative of the

less than satisfactory quality of many interpreters who are

already working, causing many states to establish a waiver

system so present interpreters can eventually come into

compliance (Virginia Department of Education, 1993).

Simply because states mandate minimum standards for

interpreters does not automatically lead to compliance.

Stewart and Kluwin (1996) found discrepancies between

guideline recommendations and what actually happened in the

interpreting environment (schools). The implementation of

standards is simplistic compared to the development of

mechanisms by which these standards can be monitored and

compliance ensured.

Many states, such as Ohio, still give the auspices of

awarding certification to national testing bodies (e.g. The

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc; The National


29

Association of the Deaf, Inc.), but require the interpreter

be certified nonetheless (Ohio Interpreter Standards

Committee, 1998). The problem with requiring national

certification, as with state certification, is that there

are insufficient interpreters who meet these standards.

D. A. Miller (Personal Communication, February 9,

1999) says that Nebraska, while instituting state

certification standards, has a waiting list over one year

long to take the examination. Perhaps states are

establishing unreasonable standards that they cannot meet;

requirements that neglect to recognize the already critical

shortage of interpreters.

Interpreters for the deaf may be able to point to

spoken language interpreters for solace. Viaggio (1996)

states that spoken language interpreters have accomplished

much in the past 50 years. Considering that interpreters

for the deaf did not formally organize until 1964 (Registry

of Interpreters for the Deaf, 1998), perhaps interpreters

for the deaf are about 20 years behind spoken language

interpreters, and improvements will evolve over time.


30

Unfortunately, the present situations for

interpreters, who lack professional work standards, can

cause stress and discord. The present situation can lead

to animosity between qualified, trained interpreters and

those who are not qualified but are in high demand due to

the severe shortage of interpreters.

The concept of interpreter standards not only includes

nationally or locally recognized certification, but also

what employers and consumers expect from interpreters.

There is extensive discord among deaf people, educators,

and interpreters with regard to sign language and what may

constitute a “sign system.” Sign systems refer to those

methods of communication for the deaf that usually

constitute a contrived system of symbols, rather than a

natural progression of a maturing language as found in

American Sign Language (ASL). The Canadian Association of

the Deaf (1994b) is in direct opposition to sign systems,

only recognizing American Sign Language (ASL) and la Langue

des Signes du Quebec (LSQ) as the only official, working

sign languages in Canada. This contention within the Deaf

community often places interpreters in the precarious


31

position of being required by a school district or other

paying entity to interpret in a given “sign system” with

many political undertones directed towards the interpreter.

In a conflicting report, The Canadian Association of

the Deaf (1994a) supports the right of deaf people to use

sign systems in interpreting situations. This is a

conundrum. This paradox exemplifies the confusion that

many people who are deaf or who work in the field of

deafness face. There is strong public outcry to adhere to

politically correct behavior and “standards,” but sometimes

these requirements neglect to consider the present

condition of the population. This discord and confusion

place the interpreters in the middle, trying to please both

sides of the interpreting equation, but usually only

managing to satisfy one. This disparity among institutions

and people who use interpreters may lead to an erosion of

job satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf.

Interpreter Shortages

As addressed earlier, the demand for interpreters far

surpasses supply. According to the Virginia Department of

Education (1993) there is an inadequate supply of


32

interpreters to meet local school division demands.

Despite the implementation of standards, the limited supply

of interpreters cannot be brought into compliance (with

state standards) fast enough.

Supply shortages date back to the beginning of time.

When the caveman realized that he was short on food, he

went out to slay another animal. When the supply of

animals diminished, surely the caveman devised an

alternative solution, lest he painfully experienced his own

demise. The caveman learned that the food supply was

cyclical and he had to plan his hunting and storage of food

to coincide with the supply cycles.

Business addresses the supply-demand equation in a

similar manner to that of the caveman. Demand can create

an abundance or shortage in supplies, as can over- and

under-production. It is the responsibility of business to

constantly have its pulse on economic indicators in order

to plan compensatory measures to achieve a desired balance

of supply and demand. Of course, as history has

demonstrated, supply shortages can be contrived in order to

achieve financial gain, political advantage, and other


33

economic, social, and political leverages. A prime example

of this was the oil shortage experienced in North America

(and worldwide) created by the Middle East oil embargo.

Surely some of the shortage was real, but much of it was

contrived in order to manipulate pricing.

Skilled labor is in short supply in a number of

industries. This is due, at least in part, to the

refinement of labor, namely the specialization of skills.

According to Green, Machin, and Wilkinson (1996), this can

be attributed to a number of other factors, including an

expanding product market, and new technology development

with lack of trained labor.

Lewis (1998) suggests that many of our shortages are

self-inflicted. Regarding computer specialists (e.g.

information technology gurus), the personnel pool is

shrinking due to restrictive requirements on applicants to

enter this pool (advanced degrees, numerous years of

experience). Lewis’ (1998) observations suggest that

businesses and trainers have ineffectively predicted future

labor needs.


34

Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National

Association of Managers, believes that the greatest

jeopardy to business growth in the U.S. is an

“…[in]adequate supply of workers or adequately trained

workers” (Reuters, 1998). Jasinowski suggests that

increased immigration and earmarking by employers of ample

training dollars may be two methods for alleviating the

human resource supply “pinch” (Reuters, 1998). Detractors

from Jasinowski’s position might point to NAFTA (North

American Free Trade Agreement) as an example of what

happens when labor needs cannot be met and businesses go

elsewhere to manufacture their products.

Others seem to echo Lewis’ (1998) position regarding

corporate America creating its own problem of diminished

labor resources. Donahue (1998) suggests that we have

created our own problem to a great degree – computer

technology has created a huge demand for those with

computer skills and displaced many unskilled, or

differently-skilled workers. In this sense, technology and

its fallout prove to be a double-edged sword.


35

Fisher (1997) believes that the fallout of the air

traffic controller strike during the Reagan era, a

revamping of human resource policy, has global

implications. He points out that attracting, motivating,

and retaining employees must be a part of cultural and

institutional norms. If anything, the emphasis in recent

years has been for an employee to go “where the grass is

greener.” Employee loyalty to a firm has become a

negligible issue in many industries. It is rare for the

contemporary employee to work for a company their entire

working lives. We need look no further than free agency in

Major League Baseball, a trend that typifies the American

workers’ changing ethic.

According to Green (1998), demographic changes have

reduced the labor supply, with “. . . fewer people ages 16-

34 are [sic] entering the labor force than was the case

over the past few decades--approximately one-half the rate

of the 1980s--and a growing number of workers are retiring”

(p. 34). Couple this with the fact that the proportion of

older and retired Americans is increasing, we can then see


36

that we have a shrinking human resource pool serving a much

larger (and longer living) population.

In the sign language interpreting profession there has

been an unusual situation related to demographics. Until

recently, most interpreters for the deaf were those who had

deaf parents (Children of deaf adults, or Coda’s).

Interpreting, moving from a gratis profession to one that

is legitimate and financially rewarding, is blossoming and

has had to increase the range of its demographic draw.

Other non-Coda’s are entering the field, but they are not

entering fast enough to meet the demand.

Green (1998) also points that out we have experienced

a large number of women entering the work force in the past

50 years. This infiltration seems to be leveling off and

indeed may be shrinking due to the number of women who are

reconsidering their decision to leave the home, now opting

to raising their families as stay-at-home moms.

Many companies are utilizing private contract

individuals in lieu of employees, a trend that the IRS as

undoubtedly opposed. The use of private contractors has

been led to a great degree by the federal government,


37

turning to downsizing (right-sizing) and outsourcing to

curb federal spending. This complements those individuals

who wish to work from their home or exercise more freedom

in their degree of mobility. The ability to work from

one’s home is especially important in highly congested

areas where commuting to and from work is counter-

productive. In the interpreting industry, the majority of

interpreters are private contract workers. This has come

out of necessity, mostly due to the “newness” of the

profession and the lack, until recently, of central points

for referral/employment.

Green (1998) points out the companies are shifting

their geographic locations, enticed by the lower cost of

moving to rural areas where they can pay less in the form

of taxes. This does not necessarily mean that the labor

pool they need moves with them. Employers must adapt to

the change, either paying for relocation of employees, or

training the existing labor pool.

Housing shortages (Green, 1998) may also influence the

availability of a sufficient human resource pool. This is

especially true in situations where companies have


38

relocated or the rapid growth of companies in certain areas

has exceeded the growth of available housing and/or the

human resource pool. In the interpreting industry this has

far-reaching implications, as the need for interpreters in

certain geographic regions has exceeded their availability.

The Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf (RID),

addresses the shortage of interpreters in its mission

statement: “. . . RID has worked diligently to provide the

three Q’s of interpreting: Quantity, Qualification and

Quality” (Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, 1998).

However, as suggested earlier, local governments are

becoming less reliant on RID to set a standard of quality

for interpreters and are more frequently establishing their

own local testing and quality controls. Despite RID’s best

efforts, RID membership and/or certification is not seen as

a necessary requirement in order to practice the profession

of interpreting. Many interpreters forgo the expense of

joining RID, opting for a working environment where there

are no ties to a professional association of interpreters.

This could be due to a lack of confidence in RID, monetary

concerns (although RID membership is less than $100


39

annually), or fear that RID will require them to adhere to

ethical standards that they do not support or endorse.

Another reason that interpreters are in increasing

demand is the rising number of job opportunities for deaf

people. Deaf people are becoming more upwardly mobile and

need interpreters on a more frequent basis (increased need

to communicate with the hearing majority). There has been

a change in the curriculum for deaf children. Due to PL94-

142 the focus is now on mainstreaming into public school

settings, and this requires an exponential increase in the

number of interpreters in the classroom.

Paradoxically, as the need for interpreters increases,

it has become increasingly difficult to recruit them to the

profession. Interpreter pay, while increasing in recent

years, is not on a par with that of spoken language

interpreters. Interpreting for the deaf is seen as a

social service/civil servant function, with pay that

reflects a lack of understanding or appreciation for the

profession. While referral agencies may wish to increase

the rate of pay to interpreters, third party users of the

service often contest even minimal payment for a service


40

they perceive as benefiting a small minority of the

population (akin to funding for “orphan” diseases).

K. Shirley (Personal Communication, February 12, 1999)

suggests that money is not always the deciding factor when

recruiting an interpreter. Often the candidate is more

interested in support they will receive once they are

hired, as well as opportunities for professional growth and

job variety. B. Way (Personal Communication, February 24,

1999) says it is not always money that is the top priority

when hiring interpreters in British Columbia and Alberta,

but also the stability of the position. In Way’s school

district it is often difficult to hire interpreters because

the Ministry personnel are not always receptive to hiring

interpreters on a full-time basis, preferring to only

provide interpreter’s employment for the school year. This

employment is always in jeopardy – if a student withdraws,

the interpreter is terminated. It would appear to be

valuable to recruiters to know what interpreters want and

what creates higher levels of satisfaction.

The crisis of insufficient human resources to meet the

demand for interpreting has led some employers to be novel


41

in their approach to a solution. Some interpreter referral

agencies have attempted to thrive without a professional

staff, depending solely, or heavily, on private contract

interpreters (free-lance interpreters) to perform all

revenue producing work (interpreting). This is very risky

in terms of ability to perform the work as private contract

interpreters notoriously have full schedules and are

difficult to retain on short notice.

Additionally, as a serious caveat, the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) has made it a point to more strictly

define what a private contractor is, especially as it

relates to an employer’s ability to avoid payment of

matching withholding taxes.

The sum result of interpreter shortages has created an

unhealthy and dangerous burden on the interpreters working

in the profession. Frequently one interpreter is sent to

an interpreting situation when two are required. Best

practices in the profession suggest two interpreters on any

engagement that lasts over two hours, and in some instances

one-and-one-half hours. This creates physical and mental

stress on the interpreter who is sent, expected to do the


42

job of two. Interpreters who must work in these situations

are endangering their very livelihood with increased

incidence of Cumulative Motion Injury/Repetitive Motion

Injury (RID, 1998), as well as mental fatigue.

All such factors can lead the interpreter to lose

faith in their profession, their job, and their ability to

provide the service in a professional manner.

Subsequently, the interpreter suffers a loss in vocational

satisfaction, prompting the interpreter to leave the

profession for something with less stressors.

Other Labor Concerns

Job satisfaction in general is also affected by other

factors, including how the employees were trained,

recruited, mentored, and what initiatives were instituted

to retain them. Because today’s workforce is highly

mobile, of increasing concern is the issue of training,

especially for new employees and those who are required to

acquire new skills. This coincides with The Gallup

Organization’s (1999c) contention that changing job tasks

creates great tension and lack of satisfaction, while


43

training appropriately resolves some of the tension and

dissatisfaction.

Coaching or mentoring employees, whether they are new

to the job or seasoned workers, has gained a great deal of

credibility in the past decade. The concept of mentoring

is not a new one – it has been around, at least informally,

since ancient times. No doubt the experienced hunter

brought the adolescent into the wild to teach, guide, and

support the “recruit.”

What is mentoring on a formal level? In most

instances in vocational settings, mentoring can be

described as a structured, enduring relationship between

two individuals with one providing help, support, and

guidance to the other (Angle, 1998). Though mentoring

shares many of the traits of friendship and can develop

into friendship, its focus is often directed to a

particular skill to be learned, an issue to be examined, or

some other specific problem to be solved.

Another method of alleviating the shrinking human

resource pool in certain trades/professions is through

active and creative recruitment. This does not mean


44

recruitment that is unmeasured or haphazard. Bellinger

(1998) points out that companies need to carefully examine

the procedures they use for recruitment, discarding

ineffective measures and capitalizing on the effective

ones. Employers should also consider community college

programs, as these are often successful in attracting

students who can become the company’s future workers.

The Nursing Recruitment and Retention Taskforce (1998)

cites that recruitment in nursing is accomplished by

strengthening partnerships between undergraduate and

graduate programs, clinicians, and others. It is not

significantly different in the interpreting profession.

The Virginia Department of Education (1993) says that those

who are responsible for training educational interpreters

should assume leadership for the recruitment initiative.

If strong relationships are formed between employers and

high schools, interpreter training programs and other

feeder institutions, recruitment efforts are ultimately

improved.

H. L. Reed (Personal Communication, February 17, 1999)

says that it is difficult to recruit interpreters because


45

of keen competition from other agencies who need

interpreters. Not only are many organizations looking to

recruit interpreters for employment, many others are also

willing to contract with interpreters on an as-needed

basis. Interpreters can make a comfortable, livable salary

as free-lancers (private, independent contract

interpreters), so there is minimal incentive for these

interpreters to give up this freedom in exchange for full-

time employment. This has led many agencies to contract

for interpreting services.

The Swedish National Association of the Deaf (1991),

along with other special interest associations, are

attempting to address the issue of recruiting interpreters.

They recognize the need will increase, making an already

short supply of interpreters a critical one. Like any

other commodity, educators in Sweden recognize that

interpreters must be actively recruited and the profession

of interpreting must be aggressively marketed as a viable

vocation.

Once the interpreter is recruited, the ideal situation

would be retention of the employee for an extended period


46

of time. If employees are not satisfied with their job

situation they will either opt for a new employment

situation or continue in their present job as an unhappy,

dissatisfied, and possibly disgruntled employee. There is,

or at least should be, an obvious relationship between an

organization’s success and its ability to retain satisfied

employees.

Human resource shortages due to the high turnover of

employees are destructive to the stability and growth of

any company unless such turnover is expected and planned

for. Other theories, issues, and forces previously

mentioned focus on alternative strategies to increase the

influx of human resources (supply) into the supply-demand

chain. Retention is the logical issue a company must

consider internally, a force under its own control in most

instances.

According to Catlette and Hadden (1998), one method to

curb human resource shortages is through proactive

retention of employees. Their methods, as outlined in The

Contented Cows Book (Catlette & Hadden, 1998) focus on

getting employees committed, showing them you care, and


47

enabling them to achieve their top performance. The

authors (Catlette & Hadden, 1998) suggest such employee

perquisites as flexible work weeks, compressed work

schedule, telecommuting, childcare, and gourmet cafeterias,

to name a few.

Russ and McNeilly (1995) cite experience and

performance as predictors of turnover. Inexperienced

employees tended to leave sooner and firms should try to

improve their satisfaction, promote, and give them a reason

to stay. Performance is an issue because top performers

always see the grass greener on the other side. The

excellent employee tends to experience a loss of

satisfaction with their present situation. They will

always think they should be able to do better elsewhere,

especially if they are dissatisfied with their present

situation.

Training Specific for Interpreters

As previously stated, American workers greatly value

training as a method to alleviate job stress and increase

job satisfaction (The Gallup Organization, 1999c).

However, in the interpreting profession it appears that our


48

best efforts may be falling short. Irwin and Morgan (1985)

state that training programs do not provide potential

interpreters with instructions, guidelines, or sufficient

information to make decisions about educational

interpreting. The role of the interpreter needs to be more

clearly defined. The same can be said for interpreters in

all settings, as many enter the field with little

preparation to handle the rigorous requirements of the

profession.

Although this training gap may have narrowed in the

past 14 years, there is reason to believe that there may be

continued inadequate training for educational interpreters,

and interpreters for the deaf in general. Elliott & Povers

(1995) did research that supports this notion; there is a

need for specialized training for educational interpreters.

The U.S. Department of Education (1997) has identified

10 awards of $120,000-$160,000 each that will go to new or

existing programs for interpreter training. A little over

$1 million appears to be inadequate federal support for a

service that is required under The Americans with

Disabilities Act (Government Printing office, 1990). With


49

over 500 thousand deaf Americans, this equates to less than

$2 per deaf person in order to insure adequately prepared

interpreters.

In some areas we are losing Interpreter Training

Programs (ITP’s). According to The Canadian Hearing

Society (1996), Sheridan College in Ontario announced the

closing of their ITP. Rather than taking steps forward,

some areas are taking steps backwards by not affording more

training to prepare interpreters. Sheridan closed

reportedly because of provincial government budget cuts.

Tseng (1992), in addressing the problems in Taiwan

regarding spoken language interpreting, states that formal

training programs must have competent trainers. If they do

not exist they must be cultivated. The same must apply to

interpreters for the deaf. The Conference of Interpreter

Trainers (CIT) is a member association in the United States

comprised of sign language interpreter educators. Despite

the best efforts of this association to provide training to

new and working interpreters, it does not seem to be

sufficient. Interpreters, especially in rural areas, go

without new or continued training due to demographic and


50

geographic constraints. Additionally, CIT may not be

promoting their own directory of interpreters trainers to

those who can provide and pay for the programs. Even

though CIT trainers may be superbly qualified to train

future and present interpreters, the limited number of

trainers available may not be sufficient to meet demand.

(Conference of Interpreter Trainers, 1998).

Limited research has been done on ITP's. Most of what

has been done was for institutional or "in house" purposes.

Smith and Gorelick (1979) conducted a survey of the

effectiveness and efficiency of recruiting and training in

ITP’s approximately 20 years ago with results that were

inconclusive. Massoud (1994) offered a review of Mott

Community College’s ITP, but the result was actually a

descriptive summary of what the program offered.

Program administrators complain of students entering

interpreting programs ill-prepared. Wilcox (personal

conversation, January 31, 1999) says that students often

have to be “taught” the language (American Sign Language) –

the actual process of learning interpretation cannot begin


51

until after the students have effectively become fluent in

the language.

In order for interpreters to enter the profession

fully prepared, ITP's and other training options must be

fully explored, funded, and expanded. A poorly trained

interpreter is likely to become a dissatisfied one,

disillusioned and destined to leave the profession

prematurely, in addition to providing poor or unethical

service to deaf and hearing consumers.

Personal Issues

The personal issues and conflicts that interpreters

face on a daily basis can be alleviated, in large part, by

proper training and preparation. Lockmiller (1982)

contends that interpreters are under a great deal of

pressure, rarely enjoying the satisfaction that they have

had any involvement in resolving any problems that have

arisen during the communication/interpretation process.

They are seen as passive participants in a communication

process, and must be so, according to strict adherence to

RID's Code of Ethics (RID, 1998). For an interpreter to be

truly effective they must be "invisible." Invisibility,


52

the concept that the interpreter is a transparent channel

through which communication is encoded and decoded, is a

goal yet a paradox for interpreters. The interpreter who

is successful often feels worthless, meaningless, and never

recognized for their hard work (Lockmiller, 1982). They

feel powerless to influence the outcome of the

communication situation in any way.

As aforementioned, the short supply of interpreters

has led many to work long hours, often out of necessity.

This can result in burnout in the most motivated

interpreters. New interpreters, as well as seasoned ones,

become disillusioned and cite feelings of exhaustion,

depression and being overwhelmed. Lockmiller (1982) says

that interpreting students, or any interpreters entering

the profession, need to be told about burnout and how to

prevent it.

Watson (1987) first examined interpreter burnout,

mostly in an anecdotal manner. The number of interpreters

who were leaving the field due to stress and exhaustion

alarmed her. Two years earlier, the Conference of

Interpreter Trainers (1995) stated in their standards that


53

ITP’s must include in their content instruction in stress

management and personal health care. Today, few (if any)

ITP's require or provide stress management classes.

Recruiters should also consider looking for

interpreters who provide the best fit to meet the stress

and other requirements inherent to the profession. Taylor

and Elliott (1994) report, in their survey of interpreters

and trainers, that 75% of all respondents believed that

“attitudinal requirements are equally as important as those

for knowledge and skills” (p. 186). Assuming a valid

survey, it appears that three-fourths of the population

believe that the interpreter’s attitude, and indeed their

personality are integral factors in ensuring an one’s

success in the profession.

Luciano and Swartz (1997) found, as did Blake (1997),

that personality type and job satisfaction are

interrelated. Blake cites Myers (1980) in stating that the

S/N (Sensors/Intuitives) preference is dominant in

predicting career choice (earlier identified by Doerfert

and Wilcox, 1986). Sensors are fact oriented, while

intuitives are drawn to possibilities, and both can be


54

profiled in Myers-Briggs as well as the California

Personality Inventory as used by Luciano and Swartz (1997).

As Provost (1990) suggests, if we do not work in a

profession that is congruent to our personality type, then

undue stress can be experienced. Provost also found that

many interpreters were Myers-Briggs NF types

(Intuitive/Feeling). This is not surprising – interpreters

are people who base decisions on values, harmony, and mercy

(Provost, 1990).

Studies on Satisfaction in General

The Gallup Organization (1998a) reported:

Traditional employee attitude/satisfaction surveys

have proven only moderately useful as an instrument

for improving the workplace. Because these surveys

attempt to measure employee attitudes about a range of

often unrelated issues, they lack a central workplace

focus. In addition, such surveys are usually

infrequent, isolated events, occurring every few years

that produce spasms of "fix-it" action plans but no

sustainable improvement.


55

Despite this report, we still cannot discount satisfaction

surveys as meaningless, snapshots of employee attitudes

about their employment situation. Perhaps if we collect

data about employee satisfaction, and do nothing with our

findings to improve noted problems and deficiencies, we are

guilty of complacency as charged by Gallup (1998a).

Among survey instruments, the Job Satisfaction Blank

#5 (JSB) was one of the first used, developed by Robert

Hoppock, the pioneer of job satisfaction research (Hoppock,

1935). It is a four-item, 7-point Likert scale measure of

global job satisfaction. Like most job satisfaction survey

instruments used today, subjects respond by checking

weighted value statements that ask how much they like their

jobs, how much of the time they are satisfied with their

jobs, how they view the prospect of changing their jobs,

and how much they enjoy their jobs compared to other people

they know.

Crites (1969) indicated 30 years ago that the JSB is

the "best- known and most widely used measure of job

satisfaction" (p. 480). Crites (1966) says that the

Hoppock Job Satisfaction Blank #5 (JSB) is probably the


56

best survey for most purposes because it is easy to

administer and score, takes only a few minutes to complete,

and is applicable to all occupations. The JSB assumes that

global job satisfaction is different than a simple

summation of components of the job (Crites, 1969), i.e. the

whole (gestalt) is greater than the sum of the parts.

Thus, when completing the instrument, employees are

expected to sum their likes and dislikes of the job and

weigh them subjectively by personal importance (Crites,

1969).

Bersani and Heifetz (1985) wrote on job satisfaction

among staff members in community residences for mentally

retarded adults. They identified a separation of stress

between work related and resident-related (violent

behavior). They used the JSB developed by Hoppock in 1935,

and examined both work-related satisfaction, and object-

related satisfaction on the job. Their results indicated a

dual track of job satisfaction, one influenced by clients

and the other influenced by the work that was not directly

influenced by clients. This is one of the earliest surveys


57

done where interpersonal behaviors were assessed separately

from actual job duties.

Numerous other studies have examined a multitude of

factors that influence job satisfaction (see Table 5). As

we can see from Table 5, employee satisfaction is related

to age, salary, job stability, management style, and

employee involvement, to name only a few factors. Heneman,

Eskew and Fox (1998) wrote on job satisfaction surveys as

they have been used in the military. They found that

satisfaction is again related to pay, rating of

performance, and pay-for-performance. The latter is a new

policy being implemented by the federal government that

bases employee salary increases on the quality of work

done; a method that has been used by the private sector for

decades.


58

Table 5

Job Satisfaction Research Summary

Study Findings

1. George and Baumeister

(1981)

1. low salary and excessive job

variation were major contributors

of stress

2. Campbell et al

(1976); Herzog and

Rogers (1986); Bernal

(1998)

2. have lower expectations and

aspirations as we age – easier to

achieve satisfaction

3. McNeely and Meglino

(1994)

3. a positive relationship between

job satisfaction and extra-role,

prosocial behavior

4. McNeal (1996);

McNeese-Smith (1996);

Jun (1998)

4. satisfaction was related to

management style and ability to

empower employees

6. Lee (1990); Tett

(1993)

6. intention/withdrawal cognitions

and personality type strongly

predict satisfaction


59

A number of studies have been done recently in the

computer and technology industries on job satisfaction.

Because this industry is a burgeoning, growth industry,

there is a great deal of interest in how the employees are

faring. Of special interest are effective methods of

attracting and retaining these workers because they are in

such short supply.

In one study, Goff (1998) identified the following

areas when examining Information Technology (IT)

professionals for job satisfaction: salary, opportunity for

advancement, use of new technologies, challenging

assignments, career/goals planning, access to training,

manageable stress, and overall job satisfaction. His

findings suggest that managers create many problems with

regard to employee job satisfaction; in effect, managers do

not understand the employees or their jobs. When asked

what factors would increase their job satisfaction, they

ranked performance bonuses, salary increases, and training

availability. Goff (1998) also found:

1. Women are much less satisfied than men.

2. Satisfaction varies greatly according to age.


60

3. Senior computer IT managers have higher stress

but higher satisfaction.

In another study on IT professionals, Paschke (1998)

suggested the following improvements to increase job

satisfaction:

1. Ensure that work is interesting, challenging, and

varying.

2. Establish a work environment where network

professionals feel they are learning and growing

professionally.

3. Implement formal training programs that satisfy

the career objectives of network professionals.

4. Keep overall compensation competitive with the

market.

5. Ensure that compensation programs are equitable

both internally and externally.

6. Implement a performance review process that is

timely, provides valuable feedback, and

establishes clear objectives.

7. Provide network professionals with opportunities

for advancement and ensure that these


61

opportunities are clearly communicated and well

understood.

Numerous other studies have been done on finite

professional groups. One such study was done by Black-

Branch (1996) who examined teacher satisfaction along the

constructs of nature of work (teaching responsibilities,

students/parents, and work conditions), context of the job

(physical environment), and the consequences of the job

(remunerations, federation/union, and career development).

He used a three-phase research method: 1) collecting survey

data; 2) interviewing a sample of the respondents; 3) meta-

analysis of the two sets of data from phases one and two.

Black-Branch (1996) found the following among teachers (p.

247):

1. Satisfaction increases with the number of years

of experience.

2. Women were more satisfied than men with their

physical work environment.

3. As age increased, so did satisfaction.

4. Satisfaction is greatly affected by

accomplishments and gains made by the


62

federation/union, especially when it relates to

pay.

O’Quin (1998) found that a 2 (number of agencies) x 2

(levels of security, high or low) multivariate analysis of

variance indicated that ratings of job insecurity were

significantly related to job dissatisfaction in the agency

perceived as nonstable, but not in the agency perceived as

stable. Discrepancy theory, as suggested by Locke (1976),

suggests that individual satisfaction is determined, in

part, by whether there is a “gap” between actual rewards or

performance and the individual’s goals or expectations.

Michalos (1986) also discovered a kind of discrepancy

called “expectation-reality gap theory” where there is a

perceived gap between the situation that is achieved now,

and what the individual expected it to be. This theory was

later expounded on by Cooper and Artz (1995, as outlined

earlier). Michalos found that 90% of the studies

investigating the existence of discrepancy theory reported

finding a significant relationship between the satisfaction

levels of individuals and some type of perceived “gap”


63

between what they currently have, and what they want to

have.

Paul Spector (1997) has discussed many facets of job

satisfaction:

1. Work and family, and work schedule are work-

related antecedents to job satisfaction.

2. Gender interacts with age to produce differing

patterns of job satisfaction for women and men.

3. Job satisfaction is an independent variable and

it is important to examine the effects of job

satisfaction on a range of outcome variables,

including performance, turnover and emotional

distress, and apparent life satisfaction.

In a recent interview (personal conversation, February

24, 1999) Spector elaborated on his impressions regarding

job satisfaction in today’s workforce in terms of trend

towards a more transient, mobile worker. Spector said that

it is difficult to determine what effect this will have on

job satisfaction. Spector explained:

National surveys have shown that satisfaction has been

high for the vast majority of Americans over time. It


64

should have more of an effect on turnover. Unhappy

people are likely to quit. Maybe this means people

will tend to be found more often in jobs they like.

(personal conversation, February 24, 1999)

Spector (personal conversation, February 24, 1999)

further states:

There isn’t much evidence that job satisfaction leads

to job performance directly via effort. There is some

relation, but it seems as likely performance leads to

satisfaction. I don’t buy the Herzberg idea.

However, there can be indirect effects. Unhappy

customer service people likely have unhappy customers,

which results in loss of business in the long run. I

agree with Locke that values and personality are more

related to motivation and thus to performance. Some

might be through goal setting, but it can be through

other mechanisms. (personal conversation, February 24,

1999)

From Spector (personal conversation, February 24, 1999) and

the many other researchers on job satisfaction who have


65

come before him, we can clearly see that job satisfaction

is a variable that is influenced by many factors. Only by

understanding and accounting for these factors can we truly

understand what comprises satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Job Satisfaction Among Self-Employed

Many researchers have found that the self-employed are

more satisfied with their jobs than wage and salary earners

(Hornaday and Vesper, 1982; Duffy and Stevenson, 1984;

Naughton, 1987a, 1987b; Katz, 1993). Spector (personal

conversation, February 24, 1999) notices that all facets of

standard job satisfaction inventories do not apply to

people who are self-employed. Additionally, the self-

employed have no supervision, per se.

VandenHeuvel and Wooden (1997) conducted some

excellent research on job satisfaction among self-employed

contractors. According to them, independence is a misnomer

because contractors depend on organizations for their

income. They may be independent to a degree in that they

can choose the organization with which to be affiliated,

but they still have no true independence. They bear all of

the risks associated with self-employment, such as poor job


66

security and the absence of benefits typically available to

employees.

Table 6

Satisfaction Levels: Self-Employed v. Wage Earner

Comparison (VandenHeuvel and Wooden, 1997)

Self-Employed Wage Earners

Overall Satisfaction Higher Lower

Job Security Lower Higher

Income Lower Higher

Amount of Control Higher Lower

Work Hours Higher Lower

VandenHeuvel and Wooden (1997) also found gender

differences, with women exhibiting higher levels of

satisfaction than men. Their research supports earlier

research which showed that older workers are more satisfied

(Campbell et al, 1976; Herzog and Rogers, 1986; Bernal,

1998). However, VandenHeuvel and Wooden (1997) found that

the youngest of workers are also very satisfied, suggesting


67

a U-shaped distribution of satisfaction, with those in

their mid-thirties being least satisfied.

It is important to note, as many researchers

discovered, that the term “private contractors” is broad,

encompassing both independent and dependent contractors.

Independent contractors are very different from dependent

contractors, providing their services to many organizations

while dependent contractors provide their services to one

organization. Bearing this in mind, it is important to

note that independent contractors had significantly higher

job satisfaction than dependent contractors (VandenHeuvel

and Wooden, 1997).

Job Satisfaction Among Interpreters

As previously mentioned interpreters for the deaf are

in extremely short supply, mostly as a result of the

incredible demand placed upon the profession with the

passage of ADA (and subsequent requirements under Title

III). Interpreters complain of burnout, being under-

appreciated, having poor working conditions (e.g. carpal

tunnel syndrome, repetitive motion injury, and cumulative

motion injury), consumer’s ignorance or confusion over


68

their role, and lack of appropriate training. All of these

factors can lead to low job satisfaction, yet there is no

current literature on job satisfaction among interpreters.

One common theme missing from the research of

recruiters, trainers, and interpreters is a linear and

global approach to satisfaction among interpreters.

Researchers seem able to identify the faults within the

training, employment, and development of interpreters, but

have yet to devise a method for translating solutions into

a logical goal - a satisfied interpreter.

The only job satisfaction research that has been

conducted on interpreters for the deaf was done by Rojas

(1987), and this was conducted using spoken language

interpreters; research regarding job satisfaction has yet

to be conducted using interpreters for the deaf. Rojas’

(1987) research, though based upon an instrument that has

no described validity or reliability, showed that the

majority of interpreters (92.75 percent) were fairly

satisfied to very satisfied with their jobs.

Unfortunately, the researcher did not perform any

sophisticated statistical analysis of the data; the only


69

statistics offered are percentile breakdowns across broad

demographic variables. Rojas (1987) did not account for

any demographic variables, so any results must be

considered as truly broad-stroke accounts, nearly anecdotal

in nature. The majority of subjects were free-lance

interpreters (94.5 percent, n=57), indicating that any

results can only be applied to the free-lance population,

excluding standard wage earning interpreters. Confirming

job security issues that independent contractors face

(VandenHeuvel and Wooden, 1997), Rojas’ (1987) found half

of the interpreters surveyed had concerns about their job

security and stability.

Measurement of Job Satisfaction

There exist numerous instruments for the measurement

of job satisfaction (Brayfield & Rothe, 1951; Buckley, M.,

1992; Donovan, M., & Drauden, R.; Edwards, 1978; Holland

and Gottfredson, 1994; Hoppock, 1935; Koustelios, A., &

Bagiatis, 1997; O’Connor, Peters, and Gordon, 1978; Smits,

1972; Spector, 1994; Weiss, D., 1977; Wood, Chonko, & Hunt,

1986;). No research has been performed, prior to this

study, assessing the job satisfaction of sign language


70

interpreters using a standardized instrument. Many

inventories for job satisfaction have been developed for

specific populations, such as the one by Koustelios &

Bagiatis (1997), which is for Greek workers, and the

inventory by Edwards (1978), which assesses occupational

attitude among U.S. Air Force airmen.

For assessing job satisfaction among interpreters, an

instrument with application to general populations, as well

as good validity and design, would be preferable. The

Index of Job Satisfaction (IJS) by Brayfield and Rothe

(1951) appears to be a good instrument for this purpose.

Brayfield and Rothe (1951) noted that the IJS had high

validity based on the nature of the items, the means in

which the instrument was constructed, and the ability of

the tool to differentiate job satisfaction between two or

more groups. The IJS had a significant correlation of r =

.92 when correlated with scores on the Hoppock Job

Satisfaction Scale (Miller, 1978).

The IJS has been used with success by McNeely (1984)

and McNeely, Feyerherm, & Johnson (1986) for assessing job

satisfaction among human service populations. Interpreters


71

for the deaf are considered to be human service workers, in

that requirements of the job entail characteristics

inherent in other human service professions, such as

sensitivity, compassion, listening skills, and empathy.

While the IJS appears to be an excellent tool for

measuring job satisfaction, another tool, or tools, should

be used to assess the various correlates of job

satisfaction. These variables, such as working with

colleagues, autonomy, and workload, have been measured with

success by Spector (1994), Quinn and Staines (1979), and

Quinn et al. (1971). Paul Spector (1974) has developed the

Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), a 36 item, nine facet scale

to assess employee attitudes. These nine facets include

pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent

rewards (performance based rewards), operating procedures

(required rules and procedures), coworkers, nature of work,

and communication. The JSS (Spector, 1994) was originally

developed for use in human service organizations, and is

one that would suit the assessment of interpreters for the

deaf.

Quinn and Staines (1979) have developed scales for


72

autonomy and role conflict that have been used with

assessment of human service workers (Jayaratne & Chess,

1986; Siefert, Jayaratne, & Chess, 1991). Earlier, Quinn

et al. (1971) developed a 4-item scale that explicitly

examines the variable of workload. This scale was used for

human service workers by Jayaratne & Chess (1986), and

Siefert, Jayaratne & Chess (1991). These three subscales,

examining autonomy, role conflict, and workload, would be a

good complement for the examination of overall job


Summary of Literature Review

After a review of the literature, the following

variables seem to be associated with job satisfaction or

dissatisfaction of employees:

1. Age (Bernal, 1998; Campbell, Converse, & Rogers,

W.L., 1976; Goff, 1998; Herzog & Rogers, 1986)

2. Quality of supervision (Gallup, 1999c; Herzberg,

1968; Hurwitz, 1995; Spector, Personal

Communication, February 24, 1999)


73

3. Pay/Salary (Black-Branch, 1996; Eskew & Fox,

1998; Herzberg, 1968; Registry of Interpreters

for the Deaf, 1993)

4. Opportunities for promotion (Herzberg, 1968; Russ

& McNeilly, 1995)

5. Working with colleagues (Gallup, 1999c; Herzberg,

1968; Hurwitz, 1995; Maidani, 1991)

6. Workload (Carstensen, 1994; Registry of

Interpreters for the Deaf, 1993; Watson, 1987)

7. Working conditions (Barber-Gonzales, Preston and

Sanderson, 1985; Carstensen, 1994; European Forum

of Sign Language Interpreters, 1994; Registry of

Interpreters for the Deaf, 1993; Woll, 1988)

8. Role conflict (Anderson & Stouffer, 1991; Bosman,

1995; Bourcier, 1981; Canadian Association of the

Deaf, 1994a; Cooper & Artz, 1995; Harboe, 1977;

Hurwitz, 1995; Irwin & Morgan, 1985; Loncke,

1995; Oakland Community College, 1991; Registry

of Interpreters for the Deaf, 1998; Stewart &

Kluwin, 1996; Woll & Porcari, 1995)


74

9. Autonomy (Hurwitz, 1995; Registry of Interpreters

for the Deaf, 1993)

10. Length of time at work (Black-Branch, 1996;

Lewis, 1998)

11. Gender (Spector, 1997; VandenHeuven & Wooden,

1997)

12. Training and education (Cassell, 1989; Elliott &

Povers, 1995; European Forum of Sign Language

Interpreters, 1994; Gallup, 1999c; Goff, 1998;

Green, 1998; Hurwitz, 1995; Irwin & Morgan, 1985;

Jasinowski (in Reuters, 1998), 1998; Smith &

Gorelick, 1979; Tseng, 1992; U.S. Department of

Education, 1997; Virginia Department of

Education, 1993)

The literature examined demonstrates that job

satisfaction is based upon many influencing factors. There

is some disagreement regarding how these factors influence

job satisfaction, especially concerning Herzberg’s (1968)

two-factor motivation model. Whether motivational factors

comprise job satisfaction alone, or if they are


75

complemented by hygiene factors as well, seems to be open

to debate.

Various studies suggest that training, empowerment,

promotions, performance ratings, mentoring/support, upward

mobility, recognition, general working conditions, and goal

realization are some of the key ingredients contributing to

the gestalt of overall job satisfaction. Other factors,

such as supply shortages, increased demands placed on

employees, and educational preparation are contributory in

affecting an employee’s overall attitude and satisfaction.

Increased interest in recent years expressed by

employers in keeping their employees happy and content has

resulted in a number of job satisfaction surveys (Catlette

& Hadden, 1998; The Gallup Organization, 1999c). Most

surveys demonstrate that the majority of Americans are

satisfied with their working situation. According to P.

Spector (Personal Communication, February 24, 1999),

”National surveys show that satisfaction has been high for

the vast majority of Americans over time.” This makes

sense and follows human nature; an employee would not be

expected to stay in a profession where one-third of their


76

adult life is spent in a situation that causes distress or

dissatisfaction.

However, many of these same studies have also

demonstrated variances in job satisfaction according to

gender, age, number of years employed at the job in

question, degree of independence, and management style or

composition of supervision. The research to date suggests

that, while the majority of Americans may be satisfied with

their employment, certain factors can be manipulated to

increase satisfaction.

No research to date has been done with regard to the

job satisfaction of interpreters for the deaf. One cursory

study was conducted by Rojas (1987) on spoken language

interpreters in Switzerland, yielding mostly general

descriptive results that were less than conclusive. Other

studies have been performed using free-lance and

independent contractors, suggesting that this workgroup is

very satisfied with their freedom but is less than

satisfied with their lack of job security – a true paradox.

Interpreting for the deaf, a rather new and recently

organized profession, has grown rapidly in the past decade.


77

Many stressors have been placed on the profession, namely

human resource shortages and lack of completely adequate

and accessible training. While the profession began as

mostly a free-lance, private contractor workforce, it has

evolved over time to include more interpreters who have

standard wage earning jobs. There are no contemporary

studies that have examined the job satisfaction of

interpreters for the deaf as either free-lance, private

contractor “employees,” or those who have standard, wage

earning jobs.

METHOD

Introductory Statement

The main purpose of this study was to describe job

satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf. A second

purpose was to examine and develop a model that uses

personal and job-related factors to predict job

satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf in general.

This study tested the relationships between job

satisfaction and various variables, compared job

satisfaction of males and females, and compared job

satisfaction levels of standard wage earner, independent

contractor interpreters, and dependent contractor

interpreters. The study also examined what set of

variables best predicts job satisfaction among standard

wage earner, independent contractor interpreters, and

dependent contractor interpreters. Moreover, this study

examined what set of variables best predicts job

satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf in general.

This chapter identifies the dependent and independent

variables, their levels of measurement, and their

definitions; and describes the research design. The


79

chapter also reports the sample size and the methods of

sample selection, data collection, instruments, and the

statistical tests that were used to analyze the data.

Finally, this chapter includes an evaluation of parametric

assumptions and human subjects’ issues.

Review of Research Questions and Hypotheses

Research Question 1

What job-related factors are most highly related to

job satisfaction?







Research Question 2

What job-related factors are related most closely to

job satisfaction among interpreters with different job


80

statuses (e.g. standard wage earners, independent

contractors, and dependent contractors)?







level.












81

Research Question 3

What set of the following variables best predicts work

satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf: age, gender,



working conditions, autonomy, or educational level?




satisfaction.

Variables, Levels of Measurement, and Definitions

The main dependent variable in this study is job

satisfaction (interval). The independent variables in this

study included the following: gender (nominal-dichotomous),

job classification which includes standard wage earner,

independent contractor, dependent contractor (nominal-

dichotomous), age (ratio), education (nominal-dichotomous),

time in current job (ratio), supervision (interval), salary

(interval), autonomy (interval), promotion (interval),

working with colleagues (interval), workload (interval),


82

role conflict (interval), autonomy (interval), education

(nominal-dichotomous), and working conditions (interval).

For the purpose of this study, these variables were

conceptualized as follows:

Job Satisfaction is the degree to which interpreters

for the deaf view their feelings about their overall work.

Supervision is the extent to which supervision is

available on a regular basis and when needed, that is, a

supportive supervisor.

Salary is the extent to which interpreters for the

deaf believe that they are paid what they deserve and that

this salary is adequate for normal living.

Promotion is the opportunity for advancement,

recognition, and increase in pay associated with

advancement for interpreters for the deaf.

Working with colleagues is the interrelationship

between interpreters for the deaf and colleagues at work

and whether or not interpreters for the deaf share similar

attitudes and values with their colleagues and feel

comfortable working with them.


83

Workload is the extent to which the demands made of

interpreters for the deaf are excessive.

Role conflict is the conflict between what

interpreters for the deaf are expected to do and actually

what they are capable of doing.

Working conditions is the extent to which interpreters

for the deaf feel comfortable in the work place and enjoy

being there, that is, a good and pleasant working

environment.

Research Design

The design of this study was a cross-sectional survey.

A cross-sectional survey was used to identify and describe

opinions and attitudes of interpreters about their job and

to test relationships among variables (Heppner, Kivlighan &

Wampold, 1992). Another common use of the survey design is

to compare data collected between groups (e.g. standard

wage earner, independent contractor, and dependent

contractor). Self-administered questionnaires were

provided to interpreters for the deaf working throughout

North America (United States and Canada). In addition to a


84

number of demographic questions, the questionnaires

included a number of items measured on a Likert-type scale.

This study employed quantitative methods.

Quantitative methods are the methods of choice because they

are typically “succinct, parsimonious, and easily

aggregated for analysis; they are systematic, standardized,

and easily presented in a short space” (Patton, 1987, p.

11). Unlike qualitative methods, quantitative methods

allow the researcher to summarize the results, compare

groups, and generalize the findings to the population(s)

from which the sample(s) is/are drawn (Patton, 1987).

Sampling Procedures

Sample Size

Data collected in this research study was used in

significance tests in order to assess the viability of the

null hypothesis. The p-value yielded from these

significance tests, and used to reject the null hypotheses,

was dependant on three factors: The larger the observed

effect, the larger the sample size, and/or the more

flexible/liberal the criterion required for significance


85

(alpha), the more likely it is that the test will yield a

significant p-value.

Prior to the collection of data a power analysis was

conducted to determine sample size needed for the two-way

analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (gender x job status) to

yield statistically significant results when the null

hypotheses are false for populations from which the samples

are drawn. As in the actual study itself, this power

analysis is based on the same factors as the significance

test itself.

The goal of a power analysis is to find an appropriate

balance among these factors and to increase the statistical

conclusion validity (Heppner, Kivlighan, & Wampold, 1992).

For a given effect size and alpha, increases in the sample

size will, in turn, increase the potential for

generalization of the results to the population from which

the sample is drawn.

Results of the power analysis indicated that a sample

size of 100 subjects was needed. A power analysis was also

conducted to determine the sample size needed to conduct

multiple regression analysis. The results suggested that a


86

sample size of 77 standard wage earner interpreters and 77

free-lance/private contractor interpreters (N = 154) was

needed to detect significant results (R2 > .20, power = .80,

with an alpha level of .05) with 11 independent variables.

A sample size of 150 was considered acceptable for this

study.

Sample Selection

Because all subjects would be contacted by electronic

mail (email), a pool of email addresses obtained from the

following sources in the United States and Canada:

1. ListServe maintained by Terps-L (Cowley, 1999).

2. ListServe maintained by the Texas Society of

Interpreters for the Deaf (Domo, 1999).

3. Membership list maintained by the Utah Registry

of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. (Utah Registry

of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc., 1999).

4. Membership directory maintained by the Potomac

Chapter of the Registry of Interpreters for the

Deaf, Inc. (PCRID, 1999).


87

5. Membership directory maintained by the Conference

of Interpreter Trainers (Conference of

Interpreter Trainers, 1999).

Procedures

The administration of surveys for this research was

unique due to the fact that it was conducted entirely over

the Internet (World Wide Web or web). The research, from

web design to administration and collection, was conducted

in the following phases:

Web Design of Instruments

Although all survey instruments existed in paper form,

they had to be adapted to web administration. This

entailed writing all text from the survey instruments into

HTML (Hyper Text Markup Language) code, a complicated

language that is read by various web browsers, such as

Netscape Browser and Internet Explorer. Greg Baugher, of

Sentinel Networks, Inc. (Baugher, 1999) was hired to design

the pages and write the code. The finished pages, as they

appears on the Internet, can be found in Appendix C.


88

The web pages were designed with the following

criteria in mind:

1. Easy navigability

2. Ability for the web pages to recognize missing

(required) responses and prompt the user to

complete the missing data

3. Brief instructions that would be read in total,

yet not detract from the integrity of the study

4. Clear separation between questions to avoid

confusion between questions and/or entering data

in the wrong box or field.

In addition to the above criteria, the Internet survey site

was designed so that all completed web forms (surveys) were

fed into a web-based database. The database designed by

Greg Baugher (Baugher, 1999) was a Microsoft Access

database that was designed to be imported directly into the

SPSS software package that was used for statistical

analysis.

The designing of the survey instrument pages was a

long process that required revision through trial and

error, as well as an extensive amount of testing. The goal


89

was to write the code for the Internet so that most

browsers would be able to read and decipher the code. This

was a difficult task, mostly because web browsers, and the

code they read (HTML for the most part), are not

standardized. There are many different generations of HTML

code, with each subsequent generation building on (not

replacing) previous editions. However, not all browsers

are able to all generations of HTML code. Additionally,

all browsers cannot read all of the features that HTML

incorporates, such as CGI script and Java Applets.

Bearing this in mind, the web designer (Greg Baugher)

decided to write the pages gearing it towards the lowest

common denominator, or those who had older, slower

browsers. The HTML code is available through site

http://www.pieinc.com/survey/ on the Internet. It can be

viewed by going to this site and then changing the

browser’s view properties to “source.”

Once the pages were initially developed, they were

tested on various browsers. All problems were noted, and

they ranged from the inability of the browser to register

responses on a page, to error messages returned after the

http://www.pieinc.com/survey/


90

pages were completed. Once all the problems (bugs) were

resolved, the pages were placed on the Internet at a test

site (http://www.sentinelnet.com/swartz/survey/index.asp).

At this point various individuals were asked to view the

pages and submit suggestions for revision. All suggestions

were collected and, when reasonable or possible, were

incorporated into the design.

A pilot test was then conducted among 12 interpreters

at a local interpreting agency in Laurel, Maryland

(Professional Interpreter Exchange, Inc.). The purpose of

the pilot was only to test the integrity of the web design

as well as the ability to extract the database and import

it into SPSS. The pilot test revealed no problems and the

survey site was considered a fully functioning site, ready

for the actual subjects to complete the surveys. To give a

better understand of how a subject would navigate through

the web pages of the survey, the flow chart showing

progression through the web site is depicted in Figure 1.

http://www.sentinelnet.com/swartz/survey/index.asp)


91

Welcome Page

Human

Subjects Issues Page

Decline Page

Exit Page

Demographics Information

Page

Survey Page 1

Thank You

Page

Exit Page

Survey Page 1

Survey Page 3

Survey Page 2

Survey Page 1

Demographics

Welcome Page

Exit Page

Figure 1. Survey Web Site Design


92

Subject Notification and Participation

As stated earlier, subject email addresses were

gathered from various sources. These addresses, a total of

3,000, were entered into a database and arranged in

alphabetical order (by the first character of the actual

address). The database was then manipulated to select

every other address and compile them into a separate data

file. Once this was accomplished the new file of addresses

was imported into E-Mass, a mass email program (Zino,

1998).

All subjects selected were notified (by email using E-

Mass) of their selection by using the standardized cover

letter found in Appendix A. This letter instructed

them of their selection for the research, gave them a brief

background on the research, and provided initial

instructions for the completion of the surveys. In the

mailing, all participants were given a URL (Uniform

Resource Locator) address, e.g.

http://www.pieinc.com/survey/index.asp, the web site they

should go to in order to complete the surveys. The survey

forms on this site were accomplished by filling in

http://www.pieinc.com/survey/index.asp


93

demographic fields and clicking on Likert-type answer

items. There was no field for name, and names will not be

collected to protect the anonymity of participants. The

participants completed the forms and once they were

completed, they were sent automatically to the web-based

database collection depository located at

http://www.pieinc.com/survey/admin.asp. The subjects were

informed in the email that they had a total of nine days to

complete the survey on-line. At that point the data

generated from the site was downloaded into a Microsoft

Access database file.

Of the 1500 emails that were sent out to subjects, 338

were returned without delivery due to mail delivery

problems. These problems included:

1. Incorrect email address was given from source.

2. Email address was no longer valid – individual

had changed jobs or Internet service provider.

3. Mail server malfunctions at receiving end.

With 1500 emails having been sent out, and 338 returned,

the best guess assumption is that 1162 emails were

delivered. Of these, a total of 177 subjects completed the

http://www.pieinc.com/survey/admin.asp


94

web-based survey. This translated into a response rate of

15 percent.

Human Subjects’ Issues

The Association of Visual Language Interpreters of

Canada (AVLIC) was informed of this study and lent their

cooperation and support for the research. In order to

ensure participants’ rights, all interpreters received,

along with the questionnaires, a cover letter explaining

the purpose of the study and how the data would be used and

for what purpose. Interpreters were also notified that

their participation in this study was completely voluntary

and that their identity would be anonymous. They were not

asked for their names, telephone numbers, or any

identifying information. Thus, the potential risk, if any,

to the participants was be minimal.

Instruments

The questionnaires included information in three

general areas (Appendix B): (a) demographic variables, (b)

job satisfaction, and (c) factors associated with job

satisfaction.


95

Part I: Demographic Variables

Subjects were asked to describe their gender, marital

status, age, number of children, education, years of

college, ethnicity, religion, time in current job, title in

current job, monthly income, interpreter training received,

level of certification, job status (standard wage earner or

free-lance/contractor interpreter, with identification of

independent and dependent contractor status), and full- or

part-time status.

Part II: Job Satisfaction

This variable was measured using the Index of Job

Satisfaction (IJS). This is a well-developed and widely

used instrument (McNeely, 1984, 1987, 1989; McNeely,

Feyerherm, & Johnson, 1986; Poulin, 1994, 1995; Poulin &

Walter, 1992; Wright, King, & Berg, 1985), and has been

widely used among human service workers. Because it has

been a widely used instrument, and has been used

extensively with human service workers, it was selected for

use with this study.


96

The IJS contains 19 items measuring overall job

satisfaction on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree,

2 = agree, 3 = undecided, 4 = disagree, and 5 = strongly

disagree). Possible scores for the IJS range between 18

(low satisfaction) to 95 (high satisfaction), with a score

of 57 as the neutral score. Nearly half of the items

(1,2,5,7,9,12,13,15, and 17) were negatively worded; thus,

for the analysis the scores of these items were reversed (1

to 5, 2 to 4, 4 to 2, and 5 to 1).

The corrected odd-even reliability coefficient for the

IJS is .87 as verified by Miller (1978). Brayfield and

Rothe (1951) noted that the IJS had high validity based on

the nature of the items, the means in which the instrument

was constructed, and the ability of the tool to

differentiate job satisfaction between two or more groups.

Brayfield, Wells, and Strate (1957) found that the IJS had

a correlation of .40 with the Science Research Associates

Inventory and .32 with the Weitz Test of General

Satisfaction. A correlation was also found between the IJS

and the Rundquist-Sletto Morale Scale. The IJS had a

significant correlation of r = .92 when correlated with


97

scores on the Hoppock Job Satisfaction Scale (Miller,

1978).

Part III: Factors Related to Job Satisfaction

Spector’s (1986) Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) was

used to collect data regarding factors related to

interpreter job satisfaction. This inventory has been used

extensively among human service workers, civil servants,

and workers in the medical field (Durr, 1996; Gillispie,

1993; Spector, 1985;). This inventory was selected for use

with this study because of its extensive use with human

service workers.

(The JSS contains nine subscales (Spector, 1994): pay

(4 items, reliability coefficient of .75), promotion (4

items, reliability coefficient of .73), supervision (4

items, reliability coefficient of .82), fringe benefits (4

items, reliability coefficient of .73), contingent rewards

(4 items, reliability coefficient of .76), working

conditions (4 items, reliability coefficient of .62),

colleagues (4 items, reliability coefficient of .60),

nature of work (4 items, reliability coefficient of .78),

and communication (4 items, reliability coefficient of


98

.71). Participants in the study were asked to rate their

answers for each item on a 6-point Likert scale (1 =

disagree very much, 2 = disagree moderately, 3 = disagree

slightly, 4 = agree slightly, 5 = agree moderately, 6 =

agree very much). Some of the items in each scale were

negatively worded; thus, for analysis the scores of these

items were reversed (1 to 6, 2 to 5, 3 to 4, 4 to 3, 5 to

2, and 6 to 1).

Autonomy

This variable was measured using a scale of six items

developed by Quinn and Staines (1979) and has a reliability

coefficient of .78 (Quinn & Staines, 1979). This

instrument was selected due to its extensive use with human

service professionals. Participants were asked to rate

their answers to each item on a 4-point Likert scale (1 =

strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly

disagree). Possible scores range from 4 to 24, with lower

scores indicating high autonomy and high scores indicating

low autonomy at work.


99

Workload

This scale consists of four items developed by Caplan,

Cobb, French, Harrison, & Pinneau (1975). It has a

reliability coefficient of .60 (Caplan et al., 1975). This

instrument was selected due to its extensive use with human

service professionals. Participants were asked to rate

their answer to each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 =

rarely, 2 = occasionally, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often,

and 5 = very often). Possible scores range from 4 to 20,

with lower scores indicating less workload and higher

scores indicating greater workload.

Role Conflict

This variable was measured using a scale first used by

Quinn and Staines (1979). The 4-item scale has a

reliability coefficient of .62 (Quinn & Staines, 1979).

This instrument was selected due to its extensive use with

human service professionals. Participants are asked to

rate their answers for each item on a 4-point Likert scale

(1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = disagree, 4 = strongly

disagree). Possible scores for this scale range between 4


100

to 16, with higher scores indicating greater conflict and

lower scores indicating less conflict at work.

Data Analysis

Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed

using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences for

Windows Version 8.0 (Norusis, 1998). Measures of central

tendency, variations, Pearson’s skewness coefficient,

distributions, and Fisher’s skewness coefficients were

generated for all variables. The standardized skewness

statistics (Pearson's and Fisher's) were used as they

render the statistic free of scale. The resulting

coefficients can be used to test whether the data was

derived from a normal distribution. If it does, the

statistic will fall between -2 and +2 about 95% of the

time.

The following statistical tests were accomplished to

address the three research questions:

1. Chi-square, Kruskal-Wallis (this test does not

assume that the populations follow Gaussian

distributions), and one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) tests was used to test group differences


101

(standard wage earner interpreters and free-

lance/private contractor interpreters, and

independent contractor interpreters and dependent

contractor interpreters) regarding gender, age,

employment status (full-time or part-time),

certification, ethnicity, number of children,

marital status, years of education, monthly pay,

and years in current job.

2. Spearman’s rho rank correlation was used to

address the first four research hypotheses

(Research Questions 1 and 2).

3. A multiple regression analyses was conducted to

test the set of variables that best predicts job

satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf

(Research Questions 3).

RESULTS

Introductory Statement

This chapter includes five sections. The first

section is a presentation of sample characteristics. The

second section is a presentation of descriptive statistics

of job satisfaction. The third section includes correlates

of job satisfaction (Research Question 1), job satisfaction

based on job status (Research Question 2), and multiple

regression analyses of predictors of job satisfaction

(Research Question 3). The fourth section is a comparison

of standard wage earner and contract interpreters with

regard to sample characteristics. The last section is a

summary of the results.

Sample Characteristics

Of the 1500 subjects emailed invitation to

participate, 1162 were successfully delivered. Of these

1238 delivered, 177 completed the surveys for a response

rate of 15%. A response rate of 50%, according to Rubin

and Babbie (1997), is considered adequate for analysis and

reporting. Therefore, the response rate obtained falls far

short of what Rubin (1997) considers adequate. Most

respondents were female (81.9%), Caucasian (92.1%), married


103

(54.2%), had graduated from an interpreter training program

(71.8%), were not certified (58.2%), and had a Bachelor’s

degree (35.6%). Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 66

years old, with a mean age of 36 years (Mdn = 37, SD =

9.03). Monthly gross income of all participants ranged

from $50 to $4,489 (U.S. Dollars).

It would have been preferable at this point to compare

this sample with the general population of interpreters,

however, there is no maintained register of interpreter

demographics available. In this study there were more

standard wage earner interpreters (N = 90) than private

contractor interpreters (N = 77). Of the private

contractor interpreters there were more who were

independent (contracting with many agencies, N = 53) than

dependent (contracting exclusively with one agency, N =

24).

In the power analysis discussed earlier, a sample size

of 77 standard wage earner interpreters and 77 free-

lance/private contractor interpreters (N = 154) was needed

to detect significant results (R2 > .20, power = .80, with


104

an alpha level of .05) with 11 independent variables. The

sample used minimally satisfies this requirement.

Descriptive Statistics for Job Satisfaction

In addition to the demographic characteristics, data

was collected for 9 subscales: job satisfaction, quality of

supervision, salary, opportunities for promotion, efficient

working with colleagues, workload, role conflict,

comfortable working conditions, and autonomy. Table 7

presents the means, medians, standard deviations, and

ranges of scores for each variable. Appendix D presents

the percentages of respondents for each item in each

subscale. Following are the results of some items

representing job satisfaction. (See Table 7 and Appendix D

for the results of all other subscales.)

Job Satisfaction

One of the 19 items included in the job satisfaction

subscale was “I feel fairly well satisfied with my present

job.” Of the 176 interpreters who answered this item, 83%

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, 6% could not

decide, and the remainder disagreed or strongly disagreed


105

with this statement. Eighty-seven percent of the

respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I

find real enjoyment in work.”

Table 7

Descriptve Statistics for Subscales (N =177)

Variable N Mdn SD Range

Job satisfaction 174 57.2 58 4.3 39-68

Salary 131 13.2 13 5.6 4-24

Quality of supervision 127 18.7 21 5.6 4-24

Promotion 125 11.3 11 4.8 4-23

Working with colleagues 152 18.3 19 4.1 7-24

Workload 172 12.2 12 3.3 5-20

Role conflict 174 10.4 11 2.5 4-16

Working conditions 151 16.1 16 4.1 5-24

Autonomy 173 13.2 13 3.9 6-22

When presented with the statement “I am disappointed

that I ever took this job,” approximately 92% of the

interpreters disagreed or strongly disagreed with the


106

statement. Regarding the statement “I am often bored with

my job,” over 85% of the respondents disagreed or strongly

disagreed. Eighty-five percent of the respondents agreed

or strongly agreed with the statement “There are some

conditions concerning my job that could be improved.”

Overall, the mean score for job satisfaction was 57.2

(SD = 4.3) on scale of 19 to 95, with the higher scores

indicated higher satisfaction.

Correlates of Job Satisfaction

Spearman’s rho rank correlations were undertaken to

address the first four hypotheses (Research Questions 1 and

2).








107

Table 8

Correlations Between Job Satisfaction and the Independent

Variables

Variable N R p*

Education 154 -.21 .004

Autonomy 173 .18 .010

Workload 176 -.18 .011

Supervision 127 -.18 .020

Role conflict 174 .11 .079

Age 171 -.10 .087

Working Conditions 151 .11 .094

Promotion 125 -.05 .289

Working with colleagues 152 .04 .322

Salary 131 -.40 .326

Years in current job 174 -.03 .348

*1-tailed p.

Note: High scores of job satisfaction, working with

colleagues, promotion, salary, role conflict, and workload

indicate a greater value of that variable. Low scores of

autonomy, supervision, and comfort indicate a greater value

of that variable.


108

Findings

Results of the Spearman’s rho rank correlation test

for the first research hypothesis are presented in Table 8.

These results show significant positive correlations

between job satisfaction and autonomy. Workload is

negatively correlated, meaning that those interpreters who

experienced less workload also experienced higher

satisfaction. In other words, interpreters who have higher

levels of autonomy, and less workload were more satisfied

than interpreters who did not have these conditions.

The results also show negative correlation between job

satisfaction, education and supervision. That is,

interpreters who had less education and less competent

supervision were more satisfied than interpreters who did

not have these conditions.

Older interpreters also reported lower levels of

satisfaction than younger interpreters, although these

findings were not significant (r = 0.10, p = .087). Age

was significantly associated with number of years in

current job (r = .42, p < .001); workload (r = -.17, p =

.014); autonomy (r = -.17, p = .013); and education (r =


109

.17, p = .019). In other words, older interpreters had

greater work experience, less excessive work demands, less

independence, and had graduated in greater numbers from

interpreter training programs than younger interpreters.

The results presented in Table 8 also show no

significant correlations between job satisfaction and role

conflict, age, working conditions, promotion, working with

colleagues, and salary. Each variable explained less than

1% of the variance in job satisfaction.







level.

Findings


for the second research hypothesis are presented in Table

9. These results show significant positive correlations


110

between job satisfaction and autonomy for staff

interpreters. Workload is negatively correlated, meaning

that those who had less workload had higher satisfaction.

In other words, staff interpreters who have higher levels

of autonomy, and less workload were more satisfied than

interpreters who did not have these conditions.

The results also show negative correlation between job

satisfaction, education and supervision. That is, staff

interpreters who had less education and less competent

supervision were more satisfied than interpreters who did

not have these conditions.

Age was significantly associated with number of years

in current job (r = .41, p < .001); autonomy (r = -.19, p =

.044); and education (r = .22, p = .029). In other words,

older interpreters had greater work experience, less

independence, and more education than younger interpreters.

The results presented in Table 9 show no significant

correlations between job satisfaction and promotion, role

conflict, working with colleagues, salary, age, years in

current job, and working conditions. Each variable

explained less than 1% of the variance in job satisfaction.


111

Table 9


Variables Among Staff Interpreters

Variable N R P*


Education 76 -.23 .023

Autonomy 88 .21 .025

Workload 87 -.20 .033

Promotion 87 -.15 .080

Working conditions 88 .08 .221


Age 86 -.05 .318

Working with colleagues 88 -.04 .365

Salary 87 -.03 .381

Years in current job 88 -.03 .407

*1-tailed p.





of that variable.


112






Findings


for the third research hypothesis are presented in Table

10. These results show significant positive correlations

between job satisfaction and opportunities for promotion (N

= 2). In other words, dependent contractor interpreters

who have good opportunities for promotion were more

satisfied than dependent contractor interpreters who did

not have this condition.

In this study, age was also significantly associated

with supervision (N = 4, r = 1.00, p < .001), and number of

years in current job (r = .60, p = .008) among dependent

contractor interpreters. In other words, older

interpreters had more quality supervision, and greater work

experience than younger interpreters.


113

Table 10


Variables Among Dependent Contractors

Variable N R p*

Promotion 2 1.00 < .001

Salary 6 .70 .061

Role conflict 16 -.28 .148

Age 16 -.20 .229

Autonomy 16 -.16 .283

Education 14 -.13 .328

Years in current job 16 .02 .328


Working conditions 9 -.08 .417

Supervision 4 .11 .447

Workload 16 .01 .497

*1-tailed p.





of that variable.


114

The results presented in Table 10 also show no

significant correlations between job satisfaction and age,

education, years in current job, pay, supervision, working

with colleagues, working conditions, autonomy, workload,

and role conflict for dependent contractor interpreters.

Each variable explained less than 1% of the variance in job

satisfaction.






Findings


for the fourth research hypothesis are presented in Table

11. These results showed significant correlations between

job satisfaction and autonomy. That is, independent

contractor interpreters who had more independence were more

satisfied in their jobs.


115

Table 11


Variables Among Independent Contractors

Variable N R p*

Autonomy 50 .26 .032

Salary 19 -.23 .171

Promotion 17 -.23 .171

Workload 50 -.17 .118

Age 51 -.12 .200




Working conditions 35 .03 .440

Education 47 .01 .484

Years in current job 51 .01 .484

*1-tailed p.





of that variable.


116

Age was also significantly associated with workload (r

= -.27, p = .026); and number of years in current job (r =

.40, p = .002). In other words, older independent

contractor interpreters had less work-related demands, and

greater work experience than younger independent contractor

interpreters.

Multiple Regression Analysis

A multiple regression analysis was undertaken to

estimate a model that best predicts job satisfaction among

interpreters for the deaf. Three methods of multiple

regression solutions were undertaken: (a) forward; (b)

stepwise, and (c) backward (Munro & Page, 1993). The

results of the three methods were consistent. Thus, the

results of the stepwise method are presented here. A

stepwise method was selected because it combines the

forward and backward solutions, overcoming the difficulties

associated with the other two solutions (Munro & Page,

1993, p. 213).

In the regression analysis, the only independent

variables included were those variables which had

significant relationships with overall job satisfaction.


117

These variables were presented in Table 8 and include

autonomy, education, workload, and supervision. Job

satisfaction was entered as the dependent variable.




satisfaction.

Table 12

The Results of the Stepwise Multiple Regression Analysis:

Predictors of Job Satisfaction Among Interpreters (N = 125)

Factor Beta R R2 T p F P

Education -.26 -.51 .26 -2.71 .008 7.36 .008

Workload -.13 -.13 .02 -1.33 .187

Autonomy .07 .07 .01 .76 .448

Supervision -.11 -.01 < .01 -.12 .905

Findings

The results of the stepwise multiple regression

analysis are presented in Table 12. The model explained


118

29% of the total variance in job satisfaction scores, with

only education emerging as a significant predictor of

overall job satisfaction.

Demographic Characteristics of Standard Wage Earner and

Contract Interpreters

Tables 13 through 16 describe and compare standard

wage earner (staff) and contract interpreters with regard

to their demographic characteristics. There were

significant differences between staff and contract

interpreters based on employment status (χ2 < 20.92, p <

.001) (Table 7). The ratio between full-time and part-time

interpreters was 67:33 among staff interpreters, whereas

only 31% of contract interpreters worked full-time and the

remaining were part-time (69%). The results presented in

Table 13 show no significant differences between staff and

contract interpreters based on gender, marital status,

education, ITP (graduation from an interpreter training

program), or certification (whether they do or do not

possess nationally recognized certification).


119

Table 14 shows significant differences between the two

groups with regard to years interpreting (t = 3.19, p =

.002) and years in current job (t = 4.49, P < .001).

No significant differences were found between the two

groups with regard to age, number of children, and monthly

net pay. With regard to monthly take home pay, monetary

values were converted to U.S. currency equivalents based on

a conversion rate 0.6708 Canadian Dollars per US Dollar, as

of April 13, 1999 (Dynamind, 1999).

A Kruskal-Wallis test of significance was performed to

detect significant differences between staff, dependent

contractor interpreters and independent contractor

interpreters when examining continuous variable data (age,

number of children, years interpreting, years in current

job, and monthly pay.


groups with regard to years in current job status (χ2 <

18.28, p < .001). No significant differences were found

between the three groups with regard to age, number of

children, years interpreting, and monthly net pay.


120

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also

performed to detect significant differences between staff,

dependent contractor interpreters and independent

contractor interpreters when examining continuous variable

data (age, number of children, years interpreting, years in

current job, and monthly pay. Although the data collected

was from non-random subjects, this inferential test was

conducted to further examine any differences that might

have occurred, either supporting or disputing the findings

of the Kruskal-Wallis examination.


groups with regard to years in current job status (F =

8.69, p < .001). No significant differences were found

between the three groups with regard to age, number of

children, years interpreting, and monthly net pay. These

findings support those of the Kruskal-Wallis test.


121

Table 13

Sample Description Regarding Work Status (Categorical Data)

(N = 167)

Variable Staff Contract Total

Chi-

square p

N % N % N %

Gender

Male 17 19 12 16 29 17 .32 .574

Female 73 81 65 84 138 83

Total 90 54 77 46 167 100

Marital Status

Married 42 47 47 61 89 53 3.44 .063

Not Married 48 53 30 39 78 47

Total 90 54 77 46 167 100

Education

High School 14 16 8 10 22 13 8.86 .065

AA 14 16 26 34 40 24

BA 37 41 23 30 60 36

MA 13 14 13 17 26 16

Other 12 13 7 9 19 11

Total 90 54 77 46 167 100


122

Variable Staff Contract Total

Chi-

square p

N % N % N %

ITP

Graduate 64 71 55 71 119 71 .002 .964

Non-graduate 26 29 22 29 48 29

Total 90 54 77 46 167 100

Certification

Certified 35 39 33 43 68 41 .27 .603

Non-Certified 55 61 44 57 99 59

Total 90 54 77 46 167 100

Employment

Full-time 60 67 24 31 84 50 20.92 <.001

Part-time 30 33 53 69 83 50

Total 90 54 77 46 167 100

Table 14

Sample Description Regarding Work Status (Continuous Data) (N = 167)

Variable Staff (N = 90) Contractor (N = 77)

t p N SD N SD

Age 90 34.58 8.15 77 37.82 9.39 2.39 .018

Children 90 0.94 1.51 77 1.21 1.44 1.15 .252

Years interpreting 90 8.72 6.13 77 12.73 9.95 3.19 .002

Years in job 90 3.50 2.91 77 6.61 5.78 4.49 < .001

Monthly pay 81 $1,788 $775 59 $1,974 $1,101 1.23 .221

Table 15

Sample Description Regarding Work Status as Separated into Two Contract Categories

using Kruskal-Wallis (Continuous Data) (N = 177)

Variable

Staff

(N = 90)

Dependent

(N = 24)

Independent

(N = 53)

Other

(N = 10) Chi

Square df p

N Mean

Rank N

Mean

Rank N

Mean

Rank N

Mean

Rank

Age 90 79.14 24 99.25 53 95.33 10 119.55 8.67 3 .034

Children 90 83.06 24 91.33 53 95.95 10 100.05 3.21 3 .360

Years interpreting 90 78.54 24 91.96 53 100.93 10 112.75 8.88 3 .031

Years in current job 90 73.23 24 97.73 53 108.46 10 106.80

18.28 3 <

.001

Monthly pay 81 67.71 17 81.97 42 78.86 6 90.17 3.81 3 .282

Table 16

Sample Description Regarding Work Status as Separated into Two Contract Categories

using Oneway ANOVA (Continuous Data) (N = 177)

Source of Variance SS df MS F p

Age 825.76 3 275.25 3.52 .016

Number of children 3.12 3 1.04 .48 .695

Years in current job 578.98 3 192.99 8.69 < .001

Years interpreting 785.36 3 261.79 3.96 .009

Monthly Pay (US Dollars) 1587086.73 3 529028.91 .68 .564

Note: Means examined over three job classifications of staff, independent

contractor, and dependent contractor interpreter, as well as fourth group defined

as “other.”


126

Summary

The analyses conducted in this chapter had three

objectives. The first objective was to examine the

relationships between the dependent variable of job

satisfaction, and personal- and job-related factors. The

results presented in Table 8 show significant positive

correlation between job satisfaction and autonomy. The

results also show negative correlation between job

satisfaction and workload (higher workload is associated

with lower satisfaction). Finally, the results show

significant negative correlations between job satisfaction,

education, and supervision.

The second objective was to examine relationships

between the two dependent variables of job satisfaction and

categories of interpreters (staff, independent contractor,

and dependent contractor interpreters), and the independent

variables of time in current job, quality of supervision,

salary, opportunities for promotion, working with

colleagues, workload, role conflict, working conditions,

autonomy, and education. A series of Spearman’s rho rank


127

correlations were performed (one for each job category) and

the results were presented in Tables 9, 10, and 11.

The results, with regard to standard wage earner

interpreters (staff interpreters) show significant

correlation between job satisfaction and autonomy. The

results also indicated significant negative correlations

between job satisfaction and education, workload, and

supervision. For dependent contractor interpreters, the

results show significant positive correlation between job

satisfaction and opportunities for promotion (N = 2). The

results, with regard to independent contractor

interpreters, showed significant correlations between job

satisfaction and autonomy.

The third objective was to estimate a model that best

predicts job satisfaction among interpreters for the deaf

in general. The model shows that education emerged as

significant predictors of job satisfaction among

interpreters for the deaf. Education accounted for 26% of

the variance in job satisfaction, with autonomy, workload,

and supervision accounting for another 3% of variance in

job satisfaction.


128

Discussion of these results, implications, limitations

of the study, and recommendations for further research are

presented in the next chapter.

DISCUSSION

This chapter contains a summary of the findings, a

discussion of these findings, an examination of

implications for interpreter policy practice, limitations

of the study, and recommendations for further research.

Summary of the Research Findings

Initially, it should be mentioned that the results of

this research represent data that could be biased. It must

be noted that respondents to the survey were self-

selecting, all from a pool of interpreters who have

Internet access and email accounts. This automatically

excludes a large number of interpreters in the United

States and Canada who do not have Internet access and email

accounts. Additionally, it is possible that interpreters

who have Internet access and email accounts are vastly

different in job satisfaction levels, as well as other

factors that influence job satisfaction, from those

interpreters who do not have Internet access and email

accounts. This should be recognized as a possible weakness

of the study, with inferences made from these results with

this caveat in mind.


130

The purpose of this study was to examine relationships

between job satisfaction and personal- and job-related

factors among sign language interpreters for the deaf. A

secondary purpose was to examine job satisfaction

differences between staff, dependent contractor, and

independent contractor interpreters. A third purpose of

the study was to estimate a model that predicts job


A series of Spearman’s rho rank correlations were

performed to examine which variables most significantly

relate to job satisfaction. Autonomy, workload, education,

and supervision emerged as those variables significantly

related to job satisfaction among interpreters in general.

Finally, a multiple regression analysis was undertaken

to estimate a model that best predicts job satisfaction

among interpreters for the deaf in general. Education

emerged as the most important factor for interpreters,

accounting for 26% of the total variance in job

satisfaction. Autonomy, workload, and supervision all

emerged as weak predictors of job satisfaction, accounting

for only 3% of the total variance in job satisfaction.


131

Research Question 1

Correlates of Job Satisfaction

The results of the Spearman’s rho rank correlation

obtained in this study partially supported the first

research hypothesis. This study found significant positive

correlations between job satisfaction and autonomy. In

other words, high satisfaction was associated with high

values for each of these variables. Workload emerged as

significantly negatively correlated to job satisfaction.

However, this meant that a high levels of workload were

associated with low levels of job satisfaction. In other

words, the lower the workload, the higher the job

satisfaction among interpreters. This study also found

significant negative correlations between job satisfaction,

education, and supervision. That is, high satisfaction was

associated with less education and less diligent or

competent supervision.

Autonomy. In this study, high job satisfaction was

significantly associated with higher autonomy at work.

These results support those of Poulin and Walter (1992).


132

Regarding interpreters specifically, these results support

the suggestion by Hurwitz (1995) that autonomy among

interpreters for the deaf leads to higher job satisfaction.

This finding suggests the importance of interpreters having

adequate freedom at his/her work to act independently in

determining job satisfaction.

Workload. This study also found a significant correlation

between job satisfaction and workload among dependent

contractor interpreters. That is, higher work satisfaction

was significantly associated with a more manageable,

lighter, or acceptable workload. Carstensen (1994)

previously suggested workload as a significant predictor of

job satisfaction among European interpreters for the deaf.

The results of this study also support Watson’s (1987)

suggestion that excessive workload leads to lesser job

satisfaction and possible job burnout. This study’s

results emphasize the critical effect that manageable

workload has in promoting happiness and satisfaction among

interpreters.

Education and Training. This study found that more

education was associated with lower job satisfaction among


133

interpreters for the deaf in general. These results do not

support those of Goff (1998) and Green (1998) in which

employees who had more education had higher job

satisfaction. This study also contradicts Cassell (1989),

and Hurwitz (1998), who suggested that higher education was

a factor attributing to higher job satisfaction among

interpreters. This study examined post-secondary education

as the measurement variable for education. There exists

the possibility that the more educated an interpreter

become, the less likely they are content with their role as

an interpreter. This could be due to factors influencing

the interpreter role, such as limited opportunities for

advancement, or lack of challenge in the work environment.

The results of this study could also mean that

interpreters who are very satisfied with their jobs have no

desire to attend college or further their education.

Finally, the negative correlation of education to job

satisfaction among interpreters may not be an influencing

factor, but rather the result of low job satisfaction.

That is, interpreters who experience low levels of job


134

satisfaction may be attending college at higher rates in

order to transition to another career.

Quality of supervision. In this study, a significant

negative correlation was found between job satisfaction and

quality of supervision. That is, higher quality of

supervision was significantly associated with lower job

satisfaction. These results do not support Poulin (1994),

who previously found quality of supervision to be a

significant predictor of work satisfaction. Conversely,

the results of this study support the postulates by

Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory (1968). According to

this theory, the absence of good supervision would increase

job satisfaction, whereas its absence would not necessarily

increase job satisfaction. The results of this study

suggest that supervision among interpreters is not an

important factor in promoting happiness and satisfaction

among interpreters. As earlier indicated in this study,

interpreters value autonomy, with a great degree of

independence associated with high job satisfaction. It is

possible that interpreters perceive supervision as an

undesirable condition of employment.


135

Research Question 2

Correlates of Job Satisfaction Among Interpreters with

Differing Job Status

Staff Interpreters


obtained in this study partially supported the second

research hypothesis which concerned standard wage earner

(staff) interpreters. This study found significant

positive correlations between job satisfaction and autonomy

among staff interpreters for the deaf. In other words,

high satisfaction was associated with more independence

among staff interpreters. Workload emerged as

significantly negatively correlated to job satisfaction.

However, this meant that a high levels of workload were

associated with low levels of job satisfaction. In other

words, the lower the workload, the higher the job

satisfaction among staff interpreters. This study also

found significant negative correlations between job

satisfaction, supervision, and education. That is, more


136

effective supervision, and more education, were associated

with lower job satisfaction among staff interpreters.

Dependent Contractor Interpreters


obtained in this study failed to support the third research

hypothesis which concerned dependent contractor

interpreters. This study failed to find any significant

positive correlations between job satisfaction and salary,

efficient working with colleagues, role conflict,

comfortable working conditions, autonomy, or training among

dependent contractor interpreters. However, this study

found significant positive correlations between job

satisfaction and opportunities for promotion among

dependent contractor interpreters for the deaf. In other

words, high satisfaction was associated with more

opportunities for promotion. However, the results for this

correlation are highly suspect due to the extremely small

sample size (N = 2).

Opportunities for Promotion. This study found that higher

job satisfaction was associated with greater opportunities

for promotion. These results support the findings of


137

Herzberg (1968) and Russ and McNeilly (1995). They

suggested that existing opportunities for promotion would

increase employees’ sense of satisfaction. The results of

this study and others emphasize the importance of

opportunities for promotion in increasing job satisfaction

among interpreters for the deaf.

Independent Contractor Interpreters


obtained in this study partially support the fourth

research hypothesis which concerned independent contractor

interpreters. This study found significant positive

correlations between job satisfaction and autonomy.

Research Question 3

Predictors of Job Satisfaction

The results of the multiple regression analysis partially

supported the research hypothesis, and revealed one factor,

that of education, as a significant predictors of job

satisfaction. However, the amount of education was

negatively correlated to job satisfaction. These results

do not support the findings of Black-Branch (1996), Eskew


138

and Fox (1998), and Cooper and Artz (1995) as they apply to

the general population, that more education leads to higher

job satisfaction.

Implications for Interpreter Policy Practice

This study had two major findings that have

implications for interpreter policy practice. The first

finding is related to the predictors of job satisfaction,

and the second is the significant differences between

staff, independent contractor, and dependent contractor

interpreters in job satisfaction and other job-related

factors.

Figure 2. Diagram of the Predictors of Job Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction

Supervision(-)

Workload(-)

Autonomy(+)

Education(-)

Note: Education was found to be the most

significant predictor of overall job satisfaction.


139

Enhancing Interpreters’ Satisfaction

The diagram presented in Figure 2 shows the importance

of understanding the extent of increased autonomy, less

workload, less supervision, and less education for

predicting levels of satisfaction among interpreters for

the deaf throughout the U.S. and Canada. The findings

suggest that as long as interpreters do not experience

adequate independence, have an excessive workload,

experience close and competent supervision, and have

received more college training, they are likely to

experience some degree of dissatisfaction.

These results are puzzling, but may be explained by

the strong need for autonomy by interpreters. It is

possible that interpreters, including those in staff

positions, may reject the concept of being supervised,

preferring to dictate their own work policy. Additionally,

it is disconcerting to observe, as this study found, that

the more college training interpreters receive, the less

satisfied they are with their jobs. As mentioned earlier

in this study, this could be due to the limited

possibilities for promotion for interpreters. Interpreting


140

is a skill-based profession, with little upward mobility.

Most chances for promotion for interpreters would place

them in administrative, managerial, and training positions,

those in which they would do little, if any interpreting.

However, interpreters who do leave the profession of

interpreting often enter teaching and adjunct professions

that complement interpreting. Interpreters rarely leave

the profession for one that is totally detached from

interpreting.

The consequences of ignoring the factors that lead to

higher job satisfaction, and those that lead to lower

satisfaction, could result in work disruption, inflated

administrative and training costs, and reduced productivity

(Barber, 1986). When this situation occurs, the

interpreters, those they serve, and those who employ them

receive diminished returns on their investment in time,

money, and other resources. Those who employ interpreters

for the deaf play a critical role in promoting happiness

and satisfaction among interpreters.

As demonstrated by this study, the nature of

interpreting can be varied, ranging from a succinctly


141

defined staff role, to that of an independent contractor

interpreter. In all positions there is often a lack of

supervision by a person familiar with the field, and the

requirements of interpreting (Hurwitz, 1995).

This study emphasizes the need for autonomy among

interpreters, as well as the detrimental effects of

supervision and education upon job satisfaction. Perhaps

the level of supervision that interpreters are receiving is

inappropriate for their job roles, with traditional methods

of employer-employee interaction being ineffectual.

Additionally, while it is suggested that more education

leads to lower job satisfaction, perhaps the methods in

which education are delivered to interpreters do not meet

their needs.

This study examined education in the traditional,

formal sense, that being attendance at a college or

university. Informal training, that which is work-based,

was not examined as a variable influencing job

satisfaction. However, effective training and mentoring

was mentioned earlier in a review of the literature as

critical in ensuring job satisfaction and retention among


142

employees (Angle, 1998; Bellinger, 1998; The Gallup

Organization, 1999c; Hurwitz, 1995; The Virginia Department

of Education, 1993). A possible solution for interpreters

for the deaf, and one that may be considered cost-

effective, is effective mentoring and training.

The nature of interpreting, providing services to deaf

and hearing people alike, usually takes the interpreter

away from a static work environment. Interpreters are

constantly traveling from one assignment to another, be it

across town or across a college campus. While autonomy has

been demonstrated by this study as being a significant

correlate to job satisfaction, it should not be concluded

that interpreters should be left without supervision and

effective interactions at the workplace. Interpreters, if

left to function with total independence, and without

necessary support, may experience a loss of satisfaction

over time. While traditional supervision may not be

beneficial for interpreters, there are measures that can

compliment the work experience and satisfaction of

interpreters in general. Mentoring, a close relationship

between a seasoned interpreter and less seasoned


143

interpreter, may be a viable alternative to a more formal

supervisory model.

As Hurwitz (1995) suggests, effective mentoring of

interpreters can lead to increased stamina and tools to

handle the multi-faceted tasks of the job. Mentoring,

either directly or indirectly, addresses autonomy and

workload issues, both of which are highly correlated to job

satisfaction as identified in this study. Autonomy, or

independence among interpreters, can be complimented

through proper mentoring and training. If interpreters are

to function independently, regardless of their job status

(staff or contractor), they must have the proper tools,

confidence, and knowledge to act in this capacity.

Additionally, proper mentoring (and training) can

effectively alleviate the stresses associated with

workload. A mentor’s wisdom can provide the interpreter

with knowledge, options, and varying perspectives to better

address issues related to workload. This training should

also extend to contract interpreters as offered by

interpreter referral agencies, government institutions, or


144

any entity that employs or utilizes the services of

interpreters for the deaf.

Mentoring, as defined by the Registry of Interpreters

for the Deaf, Inc. (1997), “…can benefit the intern,

mentor, consumers, and the interpreting profession” (p. 1).

The following benefits of mentoring have been identified

(Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc., 1997):

1. Provide a reduced sense of isolation

2. Provide smoother entry into the interpreting

field

3. Provide a look at interpreting from another's

perspective

4. Provide a challenge to continue developing

professionally

5. Strengthening of specific skills or knowledge

areas

6. Provide real-life interpreting experience with

immediate feedback and guidance

7. Provide expert modeling to observe and emulate


145

Benefits to the mentor, as further explained the

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. (1997),

include:

1. A sense of satisfaction for having helped another

interpreter grow professionally

2. Knowledge that they have strengthened the field

of interpreting

3. Have their experience and skills recognized

Finally, the ultimate beneficiary of the mentoring process

is the consumer of interpreting services, both the hearing

and deaf persons involved in the communication process.

Their potential gains through the mentoring of

interpreters, as outlined by the Registry of Interpreters

for the Deaf, Inc. (1997) are:

1. An increase in the number of interpreters skilled

in a variety of settings

2. Direct involvement in the professional growth of

interpreters


146

Limitations of the Study

This study has a number of methodological limitations.

These limitations are as follows:

1. Cross-sectional survey. This type of design is

limited in that causality cannot be established. Due to

this limitation it is unknown whether or not the

independent variables preceded the dependent variable(s).

2. Self-selection. Fifteen hundred interpreters in

the United States and Canada received the invitation to

participate in this study, but only 177 visited the web

survey site and completed the questionnaires. No

demographic data were available for nonparticipant

interpreters to compare them with participant interpreters.

A question is raised about who they were and why they chose

not to participate.

3. Self-report. This study used a self-report

questionnaire. Interpreters were asked to read the items

and circle the number (1 to 5, 1 to 4, or 1 to 6) that best

described their feelings about a particular item. When

using a self-report method, the participant makes the

observation or records the data by himself/herself. The


147

researcher makes the assumption, either correctly or

incorrectly, that the participants’ responses accurately

reflect their feelings.

4. Sample size. The number of respondents examined,

especially among dependent contractor interpreters, was

insufficient to formulate significant conclusions, or

making applications to the general interpreter population.

5. Response rate. The response rate in this study

was 15%. This rate is inadequate for statistical analysis

according to Rubin and Babbie (1997). Therefore, the

results of this study cannot be generalized to all

interpreters for the deaf throughout the United States and

Canada. If generalizations are made, they should be made

with extreme caution.

5. Technical limitations. The data collection

implemented in this study was novel in that it was entirely

accomplished on the Internet. According to Gopalan (1996),

Internet testing and research provides “limited

possibilities for direct interaction with or observation of

users” (p. 1). Some additional concerns are: lack of

Internet access for all subjects; possible duplicate


148

completion of questionnaire by the same subject;

incompatible web browser; and, personality type and

experience of those with Internet access may be greatly

different from those who do not have Internet access.

Recommendations for Future Research

The findings from this study illustrate the importance

of a number of personal- and job-related factors in

predicting job satisfaction among interpreters for the

deaf. Therefore, replication is an important step to

cross-validate the findings and to establish

generalizability of the findings for all interpreters in

the United States and Canada and, perhaps, in other

countries. Further research similar to the present study

should examine the differing effects of personal- and job-

related variables on job satisfaction between Anglo

Americans and minority groups in the United States and

Canada. Because interpreters are highly mobile and

autonomous workers, it is suggested that the variables of

support, transportation, and workspace (private designated

work area, as interpreters who work in the field rarely


149

have an office or work area that they can call their own)

be examined in future research.

This study examined the effect of 11 independent

factors (Table 8) on job satisfaction. The results of

multiple regression analysis (Table 12) show that only 1 of

the 11 independent factors was a significant predictor of

job satisfaction, accounting for 26% of the variance. The

remaining 74% is still unexplained and should be examined.

Finally, autonomy and workload emerged as significant

correlates of job satisfaction. It would be appropriate to

perform cost-benefit analyses on implementation of programs

that emphasize these factors. As earlier suggested,

mentoring programs deserve attention and should be

considered as a viable alternative to formal training.

Further research in which job satisfaction, performed pre-

program and post-program implementation, is recommended.

In conclusion, the results of this study should be

considered a preliminary examination of job satisfaction

among interpreters for the deaf. The intent was to

establish correlates of job satisfaction, as well as a

model that best predicts job satisfaction among


150

interpreters. Further research is required to establish

appropriate inferences to workers in the profession. Of

prime concern are the influences of the factors of

education and workload. These factors, as well as others

that may emerge as significant correlates or predictors of

job satisfaction, must be examined in depth. The global

goal should always be the improvement of job satisfaction

among interpreters for the deaf.

REFERENCES

Anderson, G.B. & Stauffer, L.K. (1991). Identifying

standards for the training of interpreters for deaf people.

Journal of the American Deafness and Rehabilitation

Association, 25(3), 35-46.

Angle, D. (1998). The Kansas Mentoring Project [WWW

document]. http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~dangle/mentor.html.

Barber, G. (1986). Correlates of job satisfaction

among human service workers. Administration in Social Work,

10(1), 25-38.

Barber-Gonzales, D., Preston, C., & Sanderson, G.

(1985). Taking care of interpreters at California State

University Northridge. In M. McIntire (Ed.), Proceedings of

the Ninth National Convention of the Registry of

Interpreters for the Deaf (pp. 207-214). Silver Spring, MD:

RID Publications.

Baugher, G. (1999). Sentinel Networks, Inc. [WWW

document]. http://www.sentinelnet.net/contact.htm.

Bellinger, B. (1998, October 9). Worker shortage

persists [WWW document].

http://www.techweb.com/wire/finance/story/TWB19981009S0008.


152

Bernal, D. (1998). The age and job satisfaction

relationship: does its shape and strength still evade us?

The Journals of Gerontology, 53(5), 287-294.

Bersani, H. A. & Heifetz, L. J. (1985). Perceived

stress and satisfaction of direct-care staff members in

community residences for mentally retarded adults. American

Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90(3), 289-295.

Black-Branch, J.L. (1996). The consequences of

teaching and job satisfaction: Federation/union,

remunerations, and career development, the most important

factors. Journal of Collective Negotiations, 25(3), 247-

269.

Blake, J. (1997). Personality type and interpreters

for the deaf [WWW document].

http://www.terpsnet.com/resources/personality-types.htm.

Bosman, R. (1995). Interpreting in mental health

settings. Report on Working Seminars on Minimal Language

Skills. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the European

Forum of Sign Language Interpreters, Gent, Belgium.


153

Bourcier, P., (1981). Consumer education – the

interpreter’s point of view. A Report of the Third

International Symposium of Interpretation of Sign

Languages, Bristol, England, 111-114.

Brayfield, A.H., & Rothe, H.F. (1951). An index of job

satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(5), 307-

311.

Brayfield, A.H., Wells, R.V., & Strate, M.W. (1957).

Interrelationships among measures of job satisfaction and

general satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41,

201-205.

Buckley, M. (1992). Measurement issues concerning the

use of inventories of job satisfaction. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 52(3), 529-543.

Campbell, A., Converse, P.E., & Rogers, W.L. (1976).

The quality of American life... perceptions, evaluations,

and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.

The Canadian Association of the Deaf. (1994a, July).

Interpreting. Ottawa: Author.

The Canadian Association of the Deaf. (1994b, July).

Official languages. Ottawa: Author.


154

The Canadian Hearing Society (1996, April).

Interpreter training crisis [WWW document].

http://www.chs.ca/vibes/art003.htm.

Caplan, R., Cobb, S., French, J.R.P., Harrison, R.V.,

& Pinneau, S.R. (1975). Job demands on worker's health.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare.

Carstensen, S. (1994). Working conditions. In European

Forum of Sign Language Interpreters, Blueprint 2000: Sign

language interpreting in Europe. Hamburg, Germany.

Cassell, D. (1984). Innovative strategies for

enhancing professional attitudes and behavior in students

of interpreting. Proceedings of the Fourth National

Conference of Interpreter Trainers Convention, USA, 203-

250.

Catlette, B., & Hadden, R. (1998). Contented cows give

better milk: The plain truth about employee relations &

your bottom line. Germantown, Tennessee: Saltillo Press.

Conference of Interpreter Trainers. (1995, February).

National interpreter education standards. Chicago: Author.


155

Conference of Interpreter Trainers (1998). CIT

organizational review [WWW document].

http://www.unm.edu/~wilcox/CIT/cit_info.html#anchor1584167.

Conference of Interpreter Trainers. (1999). CIT

membership directory [Brochure]. Atlanta, Georgia: Author.

Cooper, A.C., & Artz, K.W. (1995). Determinants of

satisfaction for entrepreneurs. Journal of Business

Venturing, 10, 439-457.

Cowley, P. (1999). Terps-L subscribers [WWW document].

http://www.terpsnet.com/resources/TERPS-L-Subscribers.htm.

Crites, J.O. (1966). Test reviews. Journal of

Counseling Psychology, 13, 120-122.

Crites, J.O. (1969). Vocational Psychology. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Doerfert, K., & Wilcox, S. (1986). Meeting students'

affective needs: personality types and learning

preferences. Journal of Interpretation, 3, 35-43.

Domo, M. (1999). List Serve [WWW document].

http://www.tsid.org/listserve.htm.

Donahue, T. (1998). Coping with more complex laws,

labor shortages. HR Magazine, 43(3), 72.


156

Donavan, M., & Drauden, R. (1989). Measuring work

group effectiveness: A comparison of three instruments.

Management Communication Quarterly, 2(3), 424-448.

Duffy, P.B., & Stevenson, H.H. (1984).

Entrepreneurship and self-employment: understanding the

distinctions. In J.A. Horndady, F. Tarpley, Jr., J.A.

Timmons, & K.H. Vesper (Eds.), Frontiers of

entrepreneurship research (pp. 461-477). Wellesley, MA:

Babson College.

Durr, W. (1996). Job satisfaction in human resources:

A state employment agency. Unpublished master’s thesis,

Fort Hays State University, Hays, Kansas.

Dynamind (1999, April 14). Currency calculator [WWW

document]. http://www3.dynamind-

llc.com/currency/calculate.cfm.

Edwards, J. (1978). Comparative analyses of enlisted

job satisfaction as measured by the Occupational Attitude

Inventory, final report (Report No. AFHRL-TR-78-61). Brooks

Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human Resources Lab. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 164 902).


157

Elliott, R.N., & Povers, A.R. (1995). Preparing

interpreters to serve in educational settings. ACEHI

Journal/Revue ACEDA, 21(2-3), 132-140.

European Forum of Sign Language Interpreters. (1994).

Blueprint 2000: Sign language interpreting in Europe.

Hamburg, Germany.

Fisher, E. (1997). Managing human resource shortages

in a unionized setting: Best practices in air traffic

control. Journal of Labor Research, 18(2), 287.

The Gallup Organization (1999a). Building a stronger

workplace [WWW document].

http://www.gallup.com/workplac1.htm.

The Gallup Organization (1999b, February 15).

Employees speak out on job training [WWW document].

http://205.219.140.75/gallup%5Freleases/ddi%5Freport%5F6%5F

98.htm.

The Gallup Organization (1999c, February 24). A hard-

working day of workplace improvement [WWW document].

http://205.219.140.75/workplace%5Fsummit/fromtheceo.htm.


158

George, M.J., & Baumeister, A.A. (1981). Employee

withdrawal and job satisfaction in community residential

facilities for mentally retarded persons. American Journal

of Mental Deficiency, 85, 639-647.

Gillispie, M. (1993). Job satisfaction of new nursing

graduates experiencing a mentoring relationship.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas,

Austin.

Goff, L. (1998, April 20). Annual job satisfaction

survey: hallelujahs & heartaches [WWW document].

http://cwstage2.cw.com/home/features.nsf/All/980420careers.

Gopalan, N. (1996). The Internet as a research medium:

on-line user testing of a World Wide Web site [WWW

document]. http://web.cgrg.ohio-

state.edu/~ngopalan/writing/chi/paper.html#11.

Government Printing Office (1990). The Americans with

Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

Green, G. (1998). Tight labor markets and wages:

Employer responses to labor shortages. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.


159

Green, F., Machin, S., & Wilkinson, D. (1996). An

analysis of workplace training and skill shortages. London:

The Stationery Office Books.

Harboe, A. (1977). The development of interpretation

for the deaf as a profession. Report of Second

International Symposium of Interpretation of Sign

Languages, Chicago, 7-10.

Heneman, R., Eskew, D., & Fox, J. (1998). Using

employee attitude surveys to evaluate a new incentive pay

program. Compensation & Benefits Review, 30(1), 40-44.

Heppner, P.P., Kivlighan, D.M., & Wampold, B.E.

(1992). Research design in counseling. Pacific Grove, CA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you

motivate employees. Harvard Business Review, 53-62.

Herzog, A.R., & Rogers, W.L. (1986). Satisfaction

among older adults. In F.M. Andrews (Ed.), Research on the

quality of life (p. 267-285). Ann Arbor, MI: University of

Michigan Institute for Social Research.


160

Holland, J., & Gottfredson, G. (1994). Career

Attitudes and Strategies Inventory: An Inventory for

Understanding Adult Careers. Lutz, Florida: Psychological

Assessment Resources, Inc.

Hoppock, R. (1935). Job satisfaction. New York: Harper

& Brothers.

Hornaday, J.A., & Vesper, K.H. (1982). Entrepreneurial

education and job satisfaction. In K.H. Vesper (Ed.),

Frontiers of entrepreneurship research (pp. 25-29).

Wellesley, MA: Babson College.

Hurwitz, T. (1995). Current issues: Interpreters in

the educational setting. Paper presented at the

International Congress on Education of the Deaf, Tel Aviv,

Israel.

Irwin, C., & Morgan, S. (1985). Educational

interpreters – a new breed. Paper presented at the Annual

Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children,

Anaheim, CA.

Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. (1984). Job satisfaction: A

comparison of caseworkers and administrators. Social Work,

31(2), 144-146.


161

Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. (1986). Job satisfaction: A

comparison of caseworkers and administrators. Social Work,

31(2), 144-146.

Jun, J. (1998). An exploratory model of the

relationship between empowerment, job involvement, job

satisfaction, organizational commitment, and customer

orientation in the hospitality industry. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.

Katz, J.A. (1993). How satisfied are the self-

employed: a secondary analysis approach. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 17, 35-51.

Koustelios, A., & Bagiatis, K. (1997). The Employee

Satisfaction Inventory (ESI): Development of a scale to

measure satisfaction of Greek employees. Educational and

Psychological Measurement, 57(3), 469-476.

Lee, C. (1990). Interactive effects of Type A behavior

and perceived control on worker performance, job

satisfaction, and somatic complaints. Academy of Management

Journal, 33, 870-881.


162

Lewis, B (1998, August 10). IS survival guide [WWW

document].

http://www.idg.net/idg_frames/english/content.cgi?vc=docid_

9-67388.html.

Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of job

satisfaction. In Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of

industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1349).

Chicago: Rand McNally.

Lockmiller, C., (1982). Interpreter burnout.

Proceedings of the Conference of Interpreter Trainers, USA,

34-40.

Loncke, F. (1995). Minimal language skills and

interpreting: Setting the scene. Report on Working Seminars

on Minimal Language Skills. Symposium conducted at the

meeting of the European Forum of Sign Language

Interpreters, Gent, Belgium.

Luciano, J., & Swartz, D. (1997). An examination of

interpreter personality using the California Personality

Inventory. Paper presented at National Convention of the

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Long Beach, CA.


163

Massoud, L. (1994). Interpreter training program:

program review. Flint, MI: Mott Community College. (ERIC


Maidani, E.A. (1991). Comparative study of Herzberg's

two-factor theory of job satisfaction among public and

private sectors. Public Personnel Management, 20, 441-448.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E., & Leiter, M.P. (1994).

Maslach Burnout Inventory manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc..

McNeal, E.N. (1996). Examining job satisfaction levels

of student assistant employees of Akron Summit County

public libraries: a survey. Kent State University. (ERIC


McNeely, R.L. (1984). Occupation, gender, and work

satisfaction in a comprehensive human services department.

Administration in Social Work, 8(2), 35-47.

McNeely, R.L. (1987). Predictors of job satisfaction

among three racial/ethnic groups of professional human

service workers. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare,

14(4), 115-136.


164

McNeely, R.L. (1989). Race and job satisfaction in

human service employment. Administration in Social Work,

13(1), 75-94.

McNeely, R.L., Feyerherm, W.H., & Johnson, R.E.

(1986). Services integration and job satisfaction reactions

in a comprehensive human resource agency. Administration in

Social Work, 10(1), 39-53.

McNeely, B.L., & Meglino, B.M. (1994). The role of

dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial

organizational behavior: An examination of the intended

beneficiaries of prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 836-844.

McNeese-Smith, D. (1996). Increasing employee

productivity, job satisfaction, and organizational

commitment. Hospital & Health Services Administration,

41(2), 160-176.

Michalos, A.C. (1986). Job satisfaction, marital

satisfaction, and the quality of life; a review and

preview. In F.M. Andrews (Ed.), Research on the quality of

life (p. 267-285). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan

Institute for Social Research.


165

Miller, D.C. (1978). Handbook of research design and

social measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Munro, B., & Page, E. (1993). Statistical methods for

health care research (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: J.B.

Lippincott Company.

Myers, I.B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Naughton, T.J. (1987a) Contrasting models of quality

of working life among the self-employed: an empirical test.

In F. Hoy (Ed.), Best Paper Proceedings Academy of

Management, 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 78-81). New Orleans,

LA.

Naughton, T.J. (1987b). Quality of working life and

the self-employed manager. American Journal of Small

Business, 12, 33-40.

Norusis, M.J. (1998). SPSS 8.0 guide to data analysis.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nursing Recruitment and Retention Taskforce (1998,

August 18). Report recommendations 1996 [WWW document].

http://nursesreg.health.nsw.gov.au/corporate-

services/nursing/recruitment.htm.


166

Oakland Community College (1991). Sign language

interpreter needs assessment (Report No. JC920276).

Farmington, MI: Office of Institutional Planning and

Analysis. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345

796).

O'Conner, E., Peters., L, & Gordon, S. (1978). The

measurement of job satisfaction: Current practices and

future considerations. Journal of Management, 4, 17-26.

Ohio Interpreter Standards Committee (1998, July 15).

H.B. 205- The Ohio Interpreters Standards Bill Summary [WWW

document]. http://members.tripod.com/oisc/summary.html.

O'Quin, K. (1998). Job satisfaction and intentions to

turnover in human service agencies perceived as stable or

nonstable. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86(1), 339-345.

Paschke, J. (1998). Network job satisfaction [WWW

document].

http://www.ins.com/surveys/job_results/index.html.

Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in

evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

PCRID. (1999). Membership Directory [Brochure].

Baltimore, Maryland: Author.


167

Poulin, J.E. (1994). Job task and organizational

predictors of social worker job satisfaction change: a

panel study. Administration in Social Work, 18(1), 21-38.

Poulin, J.E. (1995). Job satisfaction of social work

supervisors and administrators. Administration in Social

Work, 19(4), 35-49.

Poulin, J.E., & Walter, C.A. (1992). Retention plans

and job satisfaction of gerontological social workers.

Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 19(1), 99-114.

Provost, J.A. (1990). Work, play, and type. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.

Quinn, R.P., & Staines, G.L. (1979). The 1977 Quality

of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social

Research.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (1993). Working

conditions. Proceedings of the Thirteenth National

Convention of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf,

182-184.

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. (1997,

August 12). Mentoring [WWW document].

http://www.rid.org/ment.html.


168

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. (1998).

Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf [WWW document].

http://www.rid.org/.

Reuters (1998, March 25). Skill shortage threatens

U.S. growth - manufacturing leader [WWW document].

http://www.pathfinder.com/money/latest/rbus/RB/1998Mar25/54

8.html.

Rojas, J. (1987). A survey on job satisfaction of

free-lance (and permanent) conference interpreters,

domiciled in the Geneva area. Unpublished paper, Webster

University, Geneva, Switzerland.

Rubin, A., & Babble, E. (1997). Research methods for

social work (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole

Publishing Company.

Russ, F.A., & McNeilly, K.M. (1995). Links among

satisfaction, commitment, and turnover intentions: the

moderating effect of experience, gender and performance.

Journal of Business Research, 34, 57-65.


169

Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., & Kalimo, R. (1995,

September). The Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey: A

self-report questionnaire to assess burnout at the

workplace. In M.P. Leiter, Extending the Burnout Construct:

Reflecting Changing Career Paths. Symposium conducted at

the APA/NIOSH conference, Work, Stress, and Health ’95:

Creating a Healthier Workplace, Washington, DC.

Siefert, K., Jayaratne, S., & Chess, W. (1991). Job

satisfaction, burnout, and turnover in health care social

workers. Health and Social Work, 16(3), 193-202.

Smith, T.M., & Gorelick, A.J. (1979). The admissions

process of the basic interpreter training program: a

formative evaluation (Tech. Rep. No. 3). Rochester, NY:

National Technical Institute for the Deaf at Rochester

Institute of Technology.

Smits, S. (1972). Counselor job satisfaction and

employment turnover in the state rehabilitation agencies.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 19(6), 512-517.

Snavely, B. (1997). Dr. Bill Snavely's home page [WWW

document]. http://www.sba.muohio.edu/snavelwb/.


170

Spector, P. (1985). Measurement of human service staff

satisfaction: Development of the job satisfaction survey.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693-713.

Spector, P. (1986). Assessing employee job

satisfaction with the job satisfaction survey. Mental

Retardation Systems, 3, 5-13.

Spector, P.E. (1994). Job Satisfaction Survey, JSS

[WWW document].

http://chuma.cas.usf.edu/~spector/scales/jssovr.html.

Spector, P.E. (1997). Job satisfaction: application,

assessment, causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Staw, B.M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst

of change: a dispositional approach to job attitudes.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.

Stewart, D.A., & Kluwin, T.N. (1996). The gap between

guidelines, practice, and knowledge in interpreting

services for deaf students. Journal of Deaf Studies and

Deaf Education, 1(1), 29-39.


171

The Swedish National Association of the Deaf. (1991).

Action program on interpreting services. Stockholm: The

Swedish National Association of the Deaf.

Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using

multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). Northridge, CA: Harper

Collins College Publishers.

Taylor, C., & Elliott, R. N. (1994). Identifying areas

of competence needed by educational interpreters. Sign

Language Studies, 83, 179-190.

Tett, R.P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: path analyses

are based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology,

46, 259-293.

Tietjen, M.A., & Myers, R.M. (1996). Motivation and

job satisfaction. Management Decision, 36(4), 226-231.

Tseng, J. (1992). Interpreting is an emerging

profession in Taiwan - a sociological model. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan.

Turoff, M. (1992). Development process [WWW document].

http://eies.njit.edu/~turoff/coursenotes/CIS679/vg2679/sld0

01.htm.


172

U.S. Department of Education (1997, October 19).

Training interpreters for individuals who are deaf and

individuals who are deaf blind [WWW document].

http://ocfo.ed.gov/grntinfo/forecast/forecast.htm.

Utah Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.

(1999). UtRID membership directory [WWW document].

http://www.bolingbroke.com/utrid/membership.htm.

Utah State Board of Education. (1997, January). Draft

policy and procedure manual. Salt Lake City: Utah State

Office of Rehabilitation Division of Services for the Deaf

and Hard of Hearing.

VandenHeuvel, A., & Wooden, M. (1997). Self-employed

contractors and job satisfaction. Journal of Small Business

Management, 35(3), 11-21.

Viaggio, S. (1996, February). A chief interpreter’s

view. Paper presented at the XIV FIT Congress, Melbourne.

Virginia Department of Education (1993). Educational

interpreters in Virginia public schools: Factors affecting

supply, demand, and training. Richmond: State of Virginia.

Watson, J. (1987). Interpreter Burnout. Journal of

Interpretation, 4, 79-86.


173

Weiss, D. (1977). Minnesota Satisfaction

Questionnaire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Woll, B. (1988). Report on a survey of sign language

interpreter training and provision within the member

nations of the European Community. Federation

Internationale des Traducteurs Revue Babel, 34(4), 193-209.

Woll, B., & Porcari, G. (1995). Higher education

interpreting. Paper presented at the International Congress

on Education of the Deaf, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Wood, V., Chonko, L., & Hunt, S. (1986). Social

responsibility and personal success: Are they incompatible?

Journal of Business Research, 14, 193-212.

Wood, V.R., Chonko, L.B., & Hunt, S. (1993). Job

satisfaction. In W.O. Bearden, et al (Ed.), Handbook of

marketing scales: multi-item measures for marketing and

consumer behavior research (p. 275). Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications.

Woolridge, E. (1995). Time to stand Maslow's hierarchy

on its head? People Management, 1(25), 17.


174

Wright, R., King, S.W., & Berg, W.E. (1985). Job

satisfaction in the workplace: a study of black females in

management positions. Journal of Social Service Research,

8(3), 65-79.

Zino, R. (1998). Abraxis software [WWW document].

http://www.abraxis.com/rzino/emass.htm.

APPENDIX A

COVER LETTER

April 2, 1999

Dear Fellow Interpreter,

You have been randomly selected to participate in

important research related to interpreter job satisfaction.

Please understand from the very beginning that you are

under no obligation to participate in this research. This

research comprises the procedural section of my doctoral

dissertation, and the results are designed to benefit the

field of interpreting.

If you have received this email in error, or in

duplicate, please accept my apology. The design of this

research is random selection with the least intrusion

possible.

The purpose of this study is to describe how you, "The

Interpreter," feel about your work and to identify methods

for improving job satisfaction. You can find the

preliminary work on this dissertation research by going to

the following URL:


176

http://www.pieinc.com/dissertation/job_satisfaction_of_inte

rpreters.htm

Even though this study is completely voluntary, you

are encouraged to participate in this landmark research.

Results of this research should help the profession better

understand interpreters and develop a model for improved

recruitment and retention.

I want to thank the Association of Visual Language

Interpreters in Canada (AVLIC) for supporting this

research. Their foresight underscores the importance of

this research.

In order to participate in this research you should go

to the following web location, as all questionnaires are

completely web-based:


There will be instructions at the web site guiding you

through the entire process. There will also be a form

enabling you to receive the results once they have been

published.

http://www.pieinc.com/dissertation/job_satisfaction_of_interpreters.htm

http://www.pieinc.com/dissertation/job_satisfaction_of_interpreters.htm



177

There are a couple of things to remember:

1. You have until Saturday, April 10, 1999 at 11:59 PM

Eastern Time to complete the survey. The website may be up

longer than this and you may still go to the site after

this date. However, there is no guarantee that your data

will be included in the study if you complete it after the

above date and time.

2. The Internet is still not a totally dependable

communication medium. There is always the possibility that

the website or any portion of the WWW backbone can "go

down." Should this happen, please come back to the site at

a later time to complete the survey.

3. Please read all information and directions in all

portions of the survey very carefully.

4. Allow sufficient time after submitting each

completed form for it to register - do not press the

"submit" buttons more than once - it will corrupt the

results.

5. You must complete the survey in one sitting. You

cannot save your results and then go back later to pick up

where you left off. Therefore, make sure you have ample


178

time (at least 30 minutes) to complete the survey once you

begin.

6. If you experience any problems with the forms that

you believe are the result of faulty design, please email

me immediately at [email protected]

7. Do not complete the survey more than once.

You are now ready to complete the survey. Please click

on the web URL http://www.pieinc.com/survey/index.asp to

complete the survey. If you are unable to click through,

simply enter the address above in the address window on

your web browser.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Daniel B. Swartz, MA, CI/CT, Principal Investigator

Kelly MacKenzie, President, AVLIC

mailto:[email protected]


APPENDIX B

INSTRUMENTS

Part I: Demographic Characteristics

Questions in BOLD are required. All information is VERY

important.

Your sex:

______ (1) male

______ (2) female

Your age:

______ years

Are you (check only one group)

______ (1) Asian, Asian American

______ (2) Black, African American

______ (3) Latino, Hispanic, Mexican American

______ (4) Native American, American Indian

______ (5) White, Caucasian

______ (6) Other (please specify___________________)


180

Marital status:

______ (1) single

______ (2) married

______ (3) divorced

______ (4) widowed

______ (5) other (please specify ________________)

If married, for how long have you been married to your

current spouse?

______ years

Number of children:

_________ children

Please indicate the highest degree level you have attained:

______ (1) High school

______ (2) Associate’s

______ (3) Bachelor’s

______ (4) Master’s

______ (5) Doctorate

______ (6) Other


181

How many years of college have you completed?

______ years

Did you graduate from an interpreter training program?

______ (1) yes

______ (2) no

If you answered yes to the previous question, what level of

education was this?

______ (1) Certificate

______ (2) Associate’s

______ (3) Bachelor’s

______ (4) Master’s

______ (6) Other (specify ___________________________)


182

What level(s) of interpreter certification do you have?

______ (1) CI (RID)

______ (2) CT (RID)

______ (3) OIC (RID)

______ (4) SC:L (RID)

______ (5) CDI (RID)

______ (6) TOI (AVLIC)

______ (7) Other

______ (8) None

If you chose other, please specify

___________________________

What is your job title in your present job?

__________________ job title

How many years have you been in your present job?

______ years

How many years have you been interpreting?

______ years


183

How many of those years have been full-time (> 35 hours)?

______ years

What is your monthly take-home pay?

______ (__US Dollars or __Canadian Dollars)

Do you have an immediate supervisor?

______ (1) yes

______ (2) no

Which best describes your work as interpreter (check only

one)?

______ (1) Employed as staff interpreter

______ (2) Free-lance mostly for one agency

______ (3) Free-lance for many different agencies

______ (4) Other (specify ____________________________)

How much do you interpret?

______ (1) full-time (> 35 hours per week)

______ (2) part-time (< 35 hours per week)


184

Primarily, what type of interpreter/transliterator are you?

______ (1) sign language

______ (2) oral

______ (3) cued speech

______ (4) Other (specify ____________________________)


185

Part II: Overall Job Satisfaction (IJS)

This part contains 18 statements about job

satisfaction. Please circle the number (1 through 5) after

each statement that best describes how you feel about your

present job. There are no right or wrong answers. I would

like your honest opinion on each one of these statements.

1=Strongly Agree 2=Agree 3=Undecided 4=Disagree

5=Strongly Disagree

SA A U D SD

1 There are some conditions

concerning my job that could

be improved.

1 2 3 4 5

2 My job is like a hobby to me. 1 2 3 4 5

3 My job is usually interesting

enough to keep me from getting

bored.

1 2 3 4 5

4 It seems that my friends are

more interested in their jobs.

1 2 3 4 5

5 I consider my job rather

unpleasant.

1 2 3 4 5


186

6 I enjoy my work more than my

leisure time.

1 2 3 4 5

7 I am often bored with my job. 1 2 3 4 5

8 I feel fairly well satisfied

with my present job.

1 2 3 4 5

9 Most of the time I have to

force myself to go to work.

1 2 3 4 5

10 I am satisfied with my job for

the time being.

1 2 3 4 5

11 I feel that my job is no more

interesting than others I

could get.

1 2 3 4 5

12 I definitely dislike my work. 1 2 3 4 5

13 I feel that I am happier in my

work than most other people.

1 2 3 4 5

14 Most days I am enthusiastic

about my work.

1 2 3 4 5

15 Each day of work seems like it

will never end.

1 2 3 4 5

16 I like my job better than the

average worker does.

1 2 3 4 5


187

17 My job is pretty interesting. 1 2 3 4 5

18 I find real enjoyment in work. 1 2 3 4 5

19 I am disappointed that I ever

took this job.

1 2 3 4 5


188

Part III: Factors Associated with Job Satisfaction

This part contains statements about pay, promotion,

supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards, working

conditions, working with colleagues, nature of work,

communication, autonomy, workload, role conflict, and

burnout. Please circle the number after each statement

that best describes how you feel about your present job.

There are no right or wrong answers. I would like your

honest opinion on each one of these statements.

1=Disagree very much

2=Disagree moderately

3=Disagree slightly

4=Agree slightly

5=Agree moderately

6=Agree very much

Please circle the

one number for each

question that comes

closest to

reflecting your

opinion about it

using the choices to

the left.

1 I feel I am being paid a fair

amount for the work I do.

1 2 3 4 5 6


189

2 There is really too little

chance for promotion on my

job.

1 2 3 4 5 6

3 My supervisor is quite

competent in doing his/her

job.

1 2 3 4 5 6

4 I am not satisfied with the

benefits I receive.

1 2 3 4 5 6

5 When I do a good job, I

receive the recognition for it

that I should receive.

1 2 3 4 5 6

6 Many or our rules and

procedures make doing a job

difficult.

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 I like the people I work with. 1 2 3 4 5 6

8 I sometimes feel my job is

meaningless.

1 2 3 4 5 6

9 Communications seem good

within this organization.

1 2 3 4 5 6


190

10 Raises are too few and far

between.

1 2 3 4 5 6

11 Those who do well on the job

stand a fair chance of being

promoted.

1 2 3 4 5 6

12 My supervisor is unfair to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6

13 The benefits we receive are as

good as most other

organizations.

1 2 3 4 5 6

14 I do not feel the work I do is

appreciated.

1 2 3 4 5 6

15 My efforts to do a good job

are seldom blocked by red

tape.

1 2 3 4 5 6

16 I find I have to work harder

at my job because of the

incompetence of people I work

with.

1 2 3 4 5 6

17 I like doing the things I do

at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6


191

18 The goals of this organization

are not clear to me.

1 2 3 4 5 6

19 I feel unappreciated by the

organization when I think

about what they pay me.

1 2 3 4 5 6

20 People get ahead as fast here

as they do in other places.

1 2 3 4 5 6

21 My supervisor shows too little

interest in the feelings of

subordinates.

1 2 3 4 5 6

22 The benefit package we have is

equitable.

1 2 3 4 5 6

23 There are few rewards for

those who work here.

1 2 3 4 5 6

24 I have too much to do at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

25 I enjoy my coworkers. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26 I often feel that I do not

know what is going on with the

organization.

1 2 3 4 5 6

27 I feel a sense of pride in

doing my job.

1 2 3 4 5 6


192

28 I feel satisfied with my

chances for salary increases.

1 2 3 4 5 6

29 There are benefits we do not

have which we should have.

1 2 3 4 5 6

30 I like my supervisor. 1 2 3 4 5 6

31 I have too much paperwork. 1 2 3 4 5 6

32 I don’t feel my efforts are

rewarded the way they should

be.

1 2 3 4 5 6

33 I am satisfied with my chances

for promotion.

1 2 3 4 5 6

34 There is too much bickering

and fighting at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6

35 My job is enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5 6

36 Work assignments are not fully

explained.

1 2 3 4 5 6


193

1=Strongly Agree

2=Agree

3=Disagree

4=Strongly Disagree

Please circle the

one number for each

question that comes

closest to

reflecting your

opinion about it

using the choices to

the left.

37 I have the freedom to decide

what to do on my job.

1 2 3 4

38 It is basically my own

responsibility to decide how

my job gets done.

1 2 3 4

39 I have a lot of say about what

happens on my job.

1 2 3 4

40 I decide when I take breaks. 1 2 3 4

41 I determine the speed at which

I work.

1 2 3 4

42 I decide who I work with on my

job.

1 2 3 4


194

43 On my job, I can’t satisfy

everybody at the same time.

1 2 3 4

44 To satisfy some people on my

job, I have to upset others.

1 2 3 4

45 I have too much work to do

everything well.

1 2 3 4

46 I never seem to have enough

time to get everything done on

my job.

1 2 3 4


195

1=Rarely

2=Occasionally

3=Sometimes

4=Fairly Often

5=Very Often

Please circle the

one number for each

question that comes

closest to

reflecting your

opinion about it

using the choices

to the left.

47 How often does your job

require you to work very fast?

1 2 3 4 5

48 How often does your job

require you to work very hard?

1 2 3 4 5

49 How often does your job leave

you with little time to get

things done?

1 2 3 4 5

50 How often is there a great

deal to be done?

1 2 3 4 5

APPENDIX C

WEB PAGES

Figure 3. Web Site Welcome Page

Interpreter Job Satisfaction Research

Welcome to the Internet Site for completing the questionnaire concerning job

satisfaction of interpreters for the deaf.

You have been invited to participate in this research. You are under no

obligation to complete this research.

Before you start I want to give you a little of my background. My name is

Daniel B. Swartz, and I am a Ph.D. candidate at The Graduate School of American,

Minneapolis, Minnesota. I am an interpreter myself, and have been since 1988. I

have always been concerned about the physical and mental well-being of

interpreters. To that end this study has become the focus of my doctoral

dissertation.

The purpose of this study is to describe how you, “The Interpreter,” feel about

your work and to identify methods for improving job satisfaction.

Your participation in the study is completely voluntary, and you can withdraw

at any time. However, if you decide to participate in the study, please complete all

parts of the questionnaire and know that your responses will be completely

anonymous.


197

If you have any questions about the study or wish to be informed about the

results, please feel free to contact me at (301) 725-3402. You maybe also contact

my committee chair, Dr. Sybil McClary, at (303) 730-8050, or the Association of

Visual Language Interpreters of Canada (AVLIC), Kelly MacKenzie (416) 588-5073.

AVLIC has been kind enough to support this study.

Thank you very much for your time. This study is very important. Your

participation will allow a comparison that will benefit all interpreters in North

America.

Sincerely,

Daniel B. Swartz, MA, CI/CT

Principal Investigator

Kelly MacKenzie

President, AVLIC Continue to Next Page


198

Figure 4. Web Site Human Subject’s Issues Page

Human Subject's Issues

The main purpose of this study is to describe job satisfaction among

interpreters for the deaf. A second purpose is to examine and develop a model that

uses personal and job-related factors to predict job satisfaction among interpreters

for the deaf in general.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and your identity will

be anonymous. You will not be asked for your name, telephone number, or any

identifying information. Thus, the potential risk, if any, to you is minimal. By

proceeding to the questionnaire, you accept these minimal risks.

Continue to Next Page Continue to Next Page


199

Figure 5. Web Site Decline Page

Decline Page

Even though you have declined to participate in this research, you can still

obtain the results from this study once they are published. By completing the form

below you can receive these results.

If you have changed your mind, and wish to participate in this study, please

click this button.

Enter your e-mail address below to receive the final results from this study.

EMAIL

Accept and Proceed

Submit


200

Figure 6. Web Site Decline Exit Page

Thank you very much for providing your email address. The final

results of this research should be completed in mid-May. At that point

your will either be forwarded the research results via email file

attachment, or sent an email that contains the URL (website) where

you can proceed to view the results of this research

Thank you again,

Daniel B. Swartz

Primary Investigator


Figure 7. Web Site Introduction to Demographics Page


201

Demographics

Welcome to this important research on interpreter satisfaction.

The only requirement you must meet in order to participate in this study is at

least part-time status as an interpreter for the deaf. If you are not an

interpreter please do not complete the following questionnaires.

Figure 8. Web Site Demographics Page

I am not an interpreter – take me out of here

I am an interpreter - Proceed


202

Demographic Characteristics

Questions in BOLD are required. All information is VERY important.

This survey should take approximately 25 - 50 minutes to complete.

Please be patient. This information in being written to a database and it may take a

minute to move to the next page. Please don't click the button more than once.

1. Your sex:

Select One

Male

Female

2. Your age (in years):


203

3. Select your ethnic group:

Select One

Asian, Asian American

Black, African American

Latino, Hispanic, Latin American

Native American, American Indian

White, Caucasian

Other

4. If other, please specify:

5. Marital Status:

Select One

Single

Married

Divorced

Widowed

Other (please specify)

6. If “other,” please specify:


204

7. If married, how long have you been married to your current

spouse (in years):

8. Number of children:

9. Highest level of education attained:

Select One

High School

Associates

Bachelors

Masters

Doctorate

Other


205

10. How many years of college have you completed?

Select One

<1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

>8

11. Did you graduate from an Interpreter Training

Program?

Select One

Yes

No


206

12. If you answered yes to the previous questions, what level of

education is this?

Select One

Certificate

Associates

Bachelors

Masters

Other

13. What level(s) of interpreter certification do you have?

Select all that apply

CI (RID)

CT (RID)

OIC (RID)

SC:L (RID)

CDI (RID)

TOI (AVLIC)

None



207

14. If “Other,” please specify:

15. What is the job title of your present job?

16. How many years have you been at your current job?

17. How many years have you been interpreting?

18. How many of those years have been full-time (> 35

hours per week)?

19. What is your monthly take-home pay?


208

20. U.S. or Canadian Dollars?

Select One

US

Canadian

21. Do you have an immediate supervisor?

Select One

Yes

No

22. What best describes your work as an interpreter?

Select One

Employed as staff interpreter

Free-lance mostly for one agency

Free-lance for many different agencies


23. If “Other,” please specify:


209

24. How much do you interpret?

Select One

Full-time (> 35 hours/week)

Part-time (< 35 hours/week)

25. Primarily, what type of interpreter/transliterator are

you?

Select One

Sign Language

Cued Speech

Oral

Continue to Job Satisfaction Survey

Quit and exit survey


210

Figure 9. Web Site Job Satisfaction Survey Page

Job Satisfaction - (Part 1 of 4)

**** Note: Read the instructions for each page very carefully, as they

may be different for each page. ****

This part contains 18 statements about job satisfaction. Please make or enter a

selection after each statement that best describes how you feel about your

current job. There are no right or wrong answers. I would like your honest

opinion about each of these statements. Answers to all questions are

required.

This survey should take approximately 25 - 50 minutes to complete.

Please be patient. This information in being written to a database and it may

take a minute to move to the next page. Please don't click the button more

than once.

Please make a selection for each question that comes closest to reflecting your

opinion about it using the choices to the right. The choices for this page will be:

Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree.

1 There are some conditions concerning my job that could be improved.

2 My job is like a hobby to me.


211

3 My job is usually interesting enough to keep me from getting bored.

4 It seems that my friends are more interested in their jobs.

5 I consider my job rather unpleasant.

6 I enjoy my work more than my leisure time.

7 I am often bored with my job.

8 I feel fairly well satisfied with my present job.

9 Most of the time I have to force myself to go to work.

10 I am satisfied with my job for the time being.

11 I feel that my job is no more interesting than others I could get.

12 I definitely dislike my work.

13 I feel that I am happier in my work than most other people.

14 Most days I am enthusiastic about my work.


212

15 Each day of work seems like it will never end.

16 I like my job better than the average worker does.

17 My job is pretty interesting.

18 I find real enjoyment in work.

19 I am disappointed that I ever took this job.


213

Figure 10. Web Site Job Satisfaction Survey (Spector, 1994)

Page

Job Satisfaction (Part 2 of 4)

**** Note: Read the instructions for each page very carefully, as they

may be different for each page. ****

This part contains statements about pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits,

contingent rewards, working conditions, working with colleagues, nature of work,

communication, autonomy, workload, role conflict, and burnout. Please make a

selection after each statement that best describes how you feel about your

present job. There are no right or wrong answers. I would like your honest

opinion on each one of these statements.

NOTE: Several of the statements below are geared to those who work as staff

interpreters, within an organization, and with a supervisor. If you are a free-

lance interpreter you may not be able to respond with certainty to some of these

statements. You are asked here to either: 1) select the item that best describes

your feelings when you are presented with these circumstances, though they be

limited; or 2) select "free-lance - Not-Applicable."



Disagree Very Much, Disagree Moderately, Disagree Slightly, Agree

Slightly, Agree Moderately, and Agree Very Much.


214

20 I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work I do.

21 There is really too little chance for promotion on my job.

22 My supervisor is quite competent in doing his/her job.

23 I am not satisfied with the benefits I receive.

24 When I do a good job, I receive the recognition for it that I should receive.

25 Many or our rules and procedures make doing a job difficult.

26 I like the people I work with.

27 I sometimes feel my job is meaningless.

28 Communications seem good within this organization.

29 Raises are too few and far between.

30 Those who do well on the job stand a fair chance of being promoted.

31 My supervisor is unfair to me.


215

32 The benefits we receive are as good as most other organizations.

33 I do not feel the work I do is appreciated.

34 My efforts to do a good job are seldom blocked by red tape.

35 I find I have to work harder at my job because of the incompetence of people I

work with.

36 I like doing the things I do at work.

37 The goals of this organization are not clear to me.

38 I feel unappreciated by the organization when I think about what they pay me.

39 People get ahead as fast here as they do in other places.

40 My supervisor shows too little interest in the feelings of subordinates.

41 The benefit package we have is equitable.

42 There are few rewards for those who work here.

43 I have too much to do at work.


216

44 I enjoy my coworkers.

45 I often feel that I do not know what is going on with the organization.

46 I feel a sense of pride in doing my job.

47 I feel satisfied with my chances for salary increases.

48 There are benefits we do not have which we should have.

49 I like my supervisor.

50 I have too much paperwork.

51 I don’t feel my efforts are rewarded the way they should be.

52 I am satisfied with my chances for promotion.

53 There is too much bickering and fighting at work.

54 My job is enjoyable.

55 Work assignments are not fully explained.


217

Figure 11. Web Site Autonomy and Role Conflict Subscales

Survey Page


**** Note: Read the instructions for each page very carefully, as they may

be different for each page. ****



Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree.

56 I have the freedom to decide what to do on my job.

57 It is basically my own responsibility to decide how my job gets done.

58 I have a lot of say about what happens on my job.

59 I decide when I take breaks.

60 I determine the speed at which I work.

61 I decide who I work with on my job.

62 On my job, I can’t satisfy everybody at the same time.


218

63 To satisfy some people on my job, I have to upset others.

64 I have too much work to do everything well.

65 I never seem to have enough time to get everything done on my job.


219

Figure 12. Web Site Workload Subscale Survey Page


**** Note: Read the instructions for each page very carefully, as

they may be different for each page. ****

Please make a selection for each question that comes closest to reflecting

your opinion about it using the choices to the right. The choices for this page will

be:

Rarely, Occasionally, Sometimes, Fairly Often, and Very Often.

66 How often does your job require you to work very fast?

67 How often does your job require you to work very hard?

68 How often does your job leave you with little time to get things done?

69 How often is there a great deal to be done?


220

Figure 13. Web Site Completion/Exit Page

Exit Page

Thank you very much for participating in this study! You have done a great deal in

furthering knowledge in this important facet of the interpreting profession.

If you would like to receive the results of this dissertation, you can complete the

form below. Your email address will be “dumped” anonymously into a large data file

and NOT attached to your questionnaire answers.

Thank you again for your participation,

Daniel B. Swartz, MA, CSA, CI, CT


Enter your e-mail address below to receive the final results from this study.

EMAIL

Submit


221

Figure 14. Web Site Thank You Page

Thank you very much for providing your email address. The final

results of this research should be completed in mid-May. At that point

your will either be forwarded the research results via email file

attachment, or sent an email that contains the URL (website) where

you can proceed to view the results of this research

Thank you again,

Daniel B. Swartz



APPENDIX D

PERCENTAGES OF RESPONDENTS

FOR EACH SUBSCALE

Table 17

Percentages of Respondents on the Index of Job Satisfaction

Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5

There are some conditions

concerning my job that

could be improved.

33.9 50.8 6.8 6.2 2.3

My job is like a hobby to

me.

7.9 20.3 7.3 29.9 34.5

My job is usually

interesting enough to keep

me from getting bored.

50.8 38.4 6.2 4.0 .6

It seems that my friends

are more interested in

their jobs.

1.1 5.1 15.3 55.9 22.6


223

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5

I consider my job rather

unpleasant.

.6 5.6 4.5 30.5 58.8

I enjoy my work more than

my leisure time.

2.8 20.9 22.0 45.8 8.5

I am often bored with my

job.

.6 7.9 6.2 46.9 38.4

I feel fairly well

satisfied with my present

job.

31.1 51.4 6.2 9.6 1.7

Most of the time I have to

force myself to go to

work.

1.1 6.2 2.8 50.8 39.0

I am satisfied with my job

for the time being.

28.2 55.4 4.0 10.7 1.7

I feel that my job is no

more interesting than

others I could get.

13.6 10.7 10.7 39.5 25.4


224

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5

I definitely dislike my

work.

0 1.7 3.4 20.9 74.0

I feel that I am happier

in my work than most other

people.

36.7 41.8 16.4 5.1 0

Most days I am

enthusiastic about my

work.

33.9 50.3 9.0 6.2 0.6

Each day of work seems

like it will never end.

1.1 2.8 9.0 62.7 24.3

I like my job better than

the average worker does.

31.1 48.0 16.9 3.4 0.6

My job is pretty

interesting.

56.5 37.3 2.3 2.8 1.1

I find real enjoyment in

work.

51.4 36.2 9.0 2.8 0.6


225

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5

I am disappointed that I

ever took this job.

1.1 2.3 5.1 17.5 74.0

Note. 1 = strongly agree, 2 = agree, 3 = undecided, 4 =

disagree, and 5 = strongly disagree


226

Table 18

Percentages of Respondents on the Pay Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

I feel I am

being paid a

fair amount for

the work I do.

12.4 14.7 14.1 13.0 32.2 13.6 0

Raises are too

few and far

between.

6.2 5.6 10.7 15.3 16.9 27.1 18.1

I feel

unappreciated

by the

organization

when I think

about what they

pay me.

19.2 14.1 9.0 13.6 10.7 10.7 22.6


227

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

I feel

satisfied with

my chances for

salary

increases.

18.6 15.3 14.7 14.7 11.9 7.3 17.5

Note. 1 = Disagree very much, 2 = Disagree moderately, 3 =

Disagree slightly, 4 = Agree slightly, 5 = Agree

moderately, 6 = Agree very much, and N/A – Not answered


228

Table 19

Percentages of Respondents on the Promotion Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

There is

really too

little chance

for promotion

on my job.

4.0 10.7 10.2 15.3 18.6 23.7 17.5

Those who do

well on the

job stand a

fair chance of

being

promoted.

21.5 12.4 16.9 10.2 9.6 4.0 25.4

People get

ahead as fast

here as they

do in other

places.

15.3 15.3 14.1 12.4 10.7 4.0 28.2


229

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

I am satisfied

with my

chances for

promotion.

22.0 11.9 19.2 7.3 9.6 4.5 25.4





230

Table 20

Percentages of Respondents on the Supervision Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

My supervisor is

quite competent

in doing his/her

job.

9.0 6.8 5.1 7.3 21.5 24.9 25.4

My supervisor is

unfair to me.

43.5 10.2 8.5 5.1 4.0 2.3 26.6

My supervisor

shows too little

interest in the

feelings of

subordinates.

32.2 10.2 7.9 10.7 5.6 6.2 27.1

I like my

supervisor.

4.5 2.8 4.0 9.6 18.6 32.8 27.7





231

Table 21

Percentages of Respondents on the Working with Colleagues

Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

I like the

people I work

with.

1.1 2.3 1.7 12.4 35.6 46.3 .6

I find I have to

work harder at

my job because

of the

incompetence of

people I work

with.

21.5 21.5 14.1 22.6 11.9 7.9 .6

I enjoy my

coworkers.

1.1 4.0 3.4 9.6 29.9 40.1 11.9


232

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

There is too

much bickering

and fighting at

work.

27.1 17.5 15.8 18.6 12.4 6.8 1.7





233

Table 22

Percentages of Respondents on the Working Conditions

Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 5 6 N/A

Many or our rules

and procedures

make doing a job

difficult.

17.5 23.7 17.5 17.5 4.5 5.1 14.1

My efforts to do

a good job are

seldom blocked by

red tape.

8.5 15.8 17.5 20.3 23.7 13.6 .6

I have too much

to do at work.

14.7 27.7 23.2 16.4 10.7 6.8 .6

I have too much

paperwork.

29.4 16.4 20.9 18.1 7.9 6.8 .6





234

Table 23

Percentages of Respondents on the Autonomy Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 N/A

I have the freedom to

decide what to do on my

job.

33.1 42.7 19.1 4.5 .6

It is basically my own

responsibility to decide

how my job gets done.

42.7 39.9 15.2 1.1 1.1

I have a lot of say about

what happens on my job.

34.3 34.3 27.5 3.4 .6

I decide when I take

breaks.

20.8 29.8 34.8 14.0 .6

I determine the speed at

which I work.

18.5 37.1 29.2 14.6 .6

I decide who I work with

on my job.

14.0 25.3 38.2 21.3 1.1

Note. 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 =

Strongly Disagree, and N/A – Not answered


235

Table 24

Percentages of Respondents on the Workload Subscale

Item

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

How often does your

job require you to

work very fast?

9.6 26.4 30.3 26.4 6.7 .6

How often does your

job require you to

work very hard?

1.1 14.0 30.9 36.5 15.7 1.7

How often does your

job leave you with

little time to get

things done?

23.6 27.0 27.5 15.2 5.6 1.1

How often is there a

great deal to be done?

8.4 21.3 27.5 26.4 15.2 1.1

Note. 1 = Rarely, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Sometimes, 4 =

Fairly Often, 5 = Very Often, and N/A – Not answered


236

Table 25

Percentages of Respondents on the Role Conflict Subscale

Item Level

1 2 3 4 N/A

On my job, I can’t satisfy

everybody at the same

time.

25.8 46.1 25.8 1.7 .6

To satisfy some people on

my job, I have to upset

others.

7.9 31.5 51.1 9.0 .6

I have too much work to do

everything well.

9.6 11.8 55.6 21.9 1.1

I never seem to have

enough time to get

everything done on my job.

9.6 18.5 52.8 18.0 1.1

Note. 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Disagree, 4 =

Strongly Disagree, and N/A – Not answered

job satisfaction of interpreters for the deaf

Documents